Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, July 15, 2008 4:49 PM CDT
Comments Comments (161) | 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!
Library pulls DVD called 'porn' from circulation
By M.K. Guetersloh
mkguetersloh@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- A DVD copy of a movie called pornographic by a library customer has been pulled from the Bloomington Public Library shelves.

On Monday, library Director Georgia Bouda said a review by a library committee resulted in a unanimous agreement to remove of the DVD of the independent film “Shortbus.”

Bill Swearingen, of Bloomington, had complained about the movie. He said he was pleased to learn of the results.

“I think that’s great,” Swearingen said. “I’m not a prude but it really was soft porn and to me I don’t see why it should be in the library.”

Bouda said she is not sure why the movie was selected for the library’s collection. As part of her process to review material, Bouda selected several librarians to watch the movie, read reviews and research whether it is in the collection of other libraries in similar size to the Bloomington library.

“Shortbus” is an unrated movie released in 2006. Bouda said there are many foreign films in the library’s collection that also are not rated. Foreign films typically do not go through the same rating process as domestic films, she added.

“We went back and looked at the film, reconsidered and it was unanimous decision to pull it,” Bouda said.

Removing material from the library is rare, Bouda said.

Swearingen said he believes the actions taken by Bouda and the other librarians show they are trying to stand up for the community’s values.

“I appreciate that they acted on this immediately and listened to my concerns,” Swearingen added.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 161 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.

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:48 AM:

" Josh - As you can see the kitty will never debate the facts with you, only change the issue and twist your words.

They can't take you on with serious knowledge because they do not have any. Even though you are in the industry and they are not, they are going to tell you how it is. LOL There's no debating a know-it-all.

Cats - still waiting for your answers about where you got the golf course and Metrodome info. Don't dodge the issue with your dancing, just answer the questions. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:16 PM:

" Josh writes...

"" While this is fun to debate with you, Cats, I'm getting a little tired. This might be my last post on this story. All libraries have the same basic policies in place; each one can and will change policies according to individual needs. Academic libraries vs public libraries, as that letter is written by a librarian who works at an academic library."

You did not say you were a salaried member of management at a library. If you are not, it must be an interesting institution (and an interesting policy) that would allow an hourly employee to have 15 to 20 hours per week of overtime. That said, all libraries" policies are not alike as you yourself point out ("Academic libraries vs public libraries')...unless you want to go on record as saying you have worked at "all libraries". You criticize assumptions...maybe you should take your own advice. BTW you post anonymously unless you think the name Josh is only used by one person. BTW how do you know my name is not The Cats? Another assumption. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Josh writes...

"You posted "Haven't seen Josh for a few days now...?", I was explaining why I hadn't blogged for a while. I also work around 55-60 hours a week. I don't have time management issues, as you assume-once again another wrong assumption:) "

To time management issues you said you were too busy to reply and insinuated I was not. I answered you. According to you (any facts there?) you work about the same amount of hours as I do and do not say whether you are involved with community groups or raising children as I am. I find the time to post hence the comment I made...I make the time and budget it. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Josh - the cats will never provide facts for what they say as they make up most of it. As for insults, they try, but get mad because I'm just better at it.

cats has nothing but 'feeling' they try to pass off as facts. When they need a stat they just make it up like: 80% of the golf courses last year lost money. They said this even though the Bloomington golf director said it was a up year locally. Another poster stated that Golf Magazine also was saying it was an up year nationally.

They are just too funny and kinda sad. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:41 PM:

" The Cats - You provide facts? LOL When was that?
Where are your facts for the questions you continue to dodge?

Where are your facts about the Metrodome?
Where are your facts about the 80% of golf courses losing money?

LOL All you do is dance and sing to make yourself feel intellectual. Sorry, but you fail at that too.

Everything I’ve ever said is backed up by council transcripts and the actual contract. What was your proof? Oh yea – The Pantagraph!! LOL

That is why you ran from the other thread. I’ll be there next month too cats. Looking forward to it. "

Josh wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:30 AM:

" As to your last post, I find it hilarious that people will trust facts that are anonymously put out by someone who won't use their real name on a post. Do you expect them to just trust your facts without citing sources?? Really naive if that's the case. "

Josh wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:29 AM:

" While this is fun to debate with you, Cats, I'm getting a little tired. This might be my last post on this story. All libraries have the same basic policies in place; each one can and will change policies according to individual needs. Academic libraries vs public libraries, as that letter is written by a librarian who works at an academic library.

You posted "Haven't seen Josh for a few days now...?", I was explaining why I hadn't blogged for a while. I also work around 55-60 hours a week. I don't have time management issues, as you assume-once again another wrong assumption:) "

The Cats wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:37 PM:

" Josh..as to your fascination with the other string...he provides no facts...I do. I do not respond to anyone who says they will spit on a returning veteran and someone who offers horrendous insults to anyone who disagrees with him on each post. If you want to support him that is fine...it is your right as it is his to say what he likes. Sorry if you do not agree with that. While I appreciate you sharing your opinion with me you will have to forgive me if I say to you that I truly do not care. Continue to post about that if it makes you feel better. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Josh...so you are saying that because you work "at a library" that you know how all libraries work...including the Bloomington Public Library? Are you saying that because you work at a library you know all of the BPL policies? Quite a statement. I find it rather ironic that you write this post while a letter from a librarian (what position do you hold?) is on these pages condemning what was done here. I also find it interesting how far off topic you have strayed. BTW I work too...in fact about 55 hours per week. I also am raising a family and am heavily involved in various organizations around town. I still find time to post. Frankly I do not care whether you have time management issues or not. As to who should have input into selection..again I say this about removal by a secret committee not selection. As to your continuing condescensions and insults...boring. "

Josh wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:41 AM:

" I apologize for shouting in my previous post before today. It gets irritating to listen to comments from people who have no idea what the policies of libraries are; and who think they know better. They have no idea what is considered when materials are purchased, yet want an input into how it's done. Makes no sense at all to me. Don't take offense, The Cats, this isn't aimed at you. I hear a lot in my daily interaction with the public. "

Josh wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:22 AM:

" I'm back, The Cats. I was working; which means I don't have all the time in the world to spend on the computer blogging, as you seem to have.

I don't work at BPL-so I'm not "defending my boss". I'm defending library policy. Another wrong assumption you've made. How many is that now?

Apparently, you don't work at this particular library-or any other, so you have no input into what they decide to purchase.

I've read all of the posts on the other thread; I'm not defending him, only wondering why you didn't post any sources for the "facts" that you were using. Anyone can spout off facts anonymously, as you are, and twist them any which way. If you had cited a source, like he asked, you would be more credible. "

HD wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:47 AM:

" This post is very similar to another one already receiving lots of comments, for all those who have not done so already, and are defending this film (like I orginally did, until I saw a trailer) visit youtube and watch the clip "Shortbus bench scene", you may change your mind about wanting to allow your children access to this material. And they library does not check id's for this type of material, as they should. "

Rational Humanist wrote on Jul 27, 2008 11:48 PM:

" HOORAH! Another Victory for the narrow-minded and the unthinking. I am ever so glad that the Library feels justified in bowing to pressure from those who want to control what others see, read, think or take interest in. This said, given that the video was purchased with tax-payer money and is now unavailable to said tax-payers, I think that it is only fair that Swearingen RE-PAY the library the cost of the DVD and any other costs incurred in kissing his rear-end. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 26, 2008 10:29 AM:

" Haven't seen Josh for a few days now...? "

The Cats wrote on Jul 25, 2008 11:03 PM:

" To Josh...

"I work at a library, so I know what the policies are. I'm also college educated and have worked hard for everything I received. "

Thanks for being honest about your work...you are defending your boss and your organization in this thread. About the policies...I have not said policy was not followed...I am saying (as are over 90% of the posters on here) that the policies are wrong and need to be changed. I am saying I have no faith in a director who refuses to have an independent group review her censorship of materials. As to college...me too. As to working hard...me too. As to the other poster...obviously you have not seen all the posts on that thread so you cannot judge who's questions are being answered and who's points are being proven. You have not looked at the insults (including him saying he would spit on someone, so I question your judgment) he hurls while refusing to discuss the merits of the issue. As to defending him...do so as you wish...it has no bearing here and certainly has no effect one way or the other with me. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:35 AM:

" Why do we continue to excuse these people's actions by laying the blame on something else? NBK is one of my favorite movies, to the point I can quote the entire thing, yet I have NEVER committed an act of violence I saw in that movie. In fact few people have. The point I'm trying to make is that since time immemoriable people have always blamed someone or something for their problems (if they didn't then they would have to admit their own faults) be it NBK, The Devil, Witchcraft (as in the Salem Witch trials), Judas Priest's albums, heavy metal, rap, hip hop, video games, Beavis and Butthead, Jack*ss, etc... This "Mr." Swearingen is just another of example of someone who can't control their own impulses so they force their strict fascist views on the rest of the world, not to save us, but instead to less their own temptation. God Bless the USSA. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:35 AM:

" DT

Thanks, I understand now. But is the movie TRULY to blame? I don't doubt this guy BLAMED the movie, who in today's society actually takes blame for their actions anymore? But if this deranged man saw another movie (or play), let's say "TITUS ANDRONICUS" and committed the same acts, would then THAT movie (play) be to blame? Would Shakespeare be a villianous poet who's sole idea was to pander to a dengenerated society (as Oliver Stone was blamed)? Or would the RESPONSIBILITY for the PERPETRATORS actions be solely on the person committing the CRIME? "

DT wrote on Jul 25, 2008 8:04 AM:

" It was an oblique way of saying that (some) people are affected by what they see and hear. They see stuff in a movie or on TV and think that it''s ok to do the same thing in real society. The Natural Born Killers guy was just the latest widely publicized example. But that movie is responsible for at least one death. That poses the philosophical question of whether that film should be taken out of circulation before it causes another death or should it remain available so that we don't sanction censorship? I'm not taking a side, merely asking the question. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:14 PM:

" “I’m not a prude but it really was soft porn and to me I don’t see why it should be in the library.”

who cares if YOU saw soft porn when YOU watched it. I might have seen an epic struggle that the hero must endure, or maybe a romantic tradgedy. But we will never know because of your fascist views MR. (and I use that term loosely)Swearingen. If YOU don't like it TURN IT OFF! It's not like you paid anything to rent it in the first place. Sam Goody used to sell foreign films that had nudity in them as well. Most of these had an epic or tragic story behind them. Too bad your mind is so far in the gutter you were unable to see anything but porn. I seriously hope you open up your mind more than you have displayed here (if not for the good of humanity, then to ensure your children don't grow up to be fascist prudes as well.) LONG LIVE THE UNITED SOCIALST STATES OF AMERICA! "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:08 PM:

" TO DT:

It's exactly the same thing, except that the case against smoke is that without doing it (just being near it) is enough to cause cancer where as this video, was not being displayed, did not contain "pornographic" material, and could not be checked out by a minor in any case. But we must protect the children at ALL costs, give me a break. And to be honest, I did not understand what you were saying or asking with

"DT
non-smoker who read story yesterday about a guy who watched Natural Born Killers and then murdered his girlfriend and who wonders whether it's worse to let something like that happen or to pull a tape from the shelves, not that this one would have produced a similar result. " "

cubfan1 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Thank you Mr. Swearington for taking this "porn" out of the library, so that I can't watch such filth. Now, if you would take similar action at the local fast food establishments so that I can't order a greasy burger, and get fat, I'd appreciate that too. While you're at it, please ask that beer and liquor stop being served at bars, and popcorn to be disallowed at movie theaters. This is ridiculous, and I cannot believe that one complaint was able to get this removed from the library. So much for "The Land of the Free"... "

DT wrote on Jul 24, 2008 1:10 PM:

" Gov Opp Mule: Gee, isn't that the same as saying If you don't like the smell of smoke, don't go to restaurants/bars that allow smolking?
DT
non-smoker who read story yesterday about a guy who watched Natural Born Killers and then murdered his girlfriend and who wonders whether it's worse to let something like that happen or to pull a tape from the shelves, not that this one would have produced a similar result. "

Gov't oppressed Mule wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:09 PM:

" How stupid are people? It's really simple. If you don't like something, don't rent it. If you don't like your children looking at something, be a parent for Ch****'s sake and step up and (OMG) have a talk with them, oh wait that means you would have to TALK to your children. Instead let their TV's, video games, and friends raise them, then wonder why they don't respect you. OH THE HUMANITY. Won't someone think of the children? "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 7:43 AM:

" Cats: You talk a big game and that's about it.

You said you would answer my question in the other thread then completely dodge the issue with insults and accusations in that thread.

You accuse others of lying when you are the biggest offender.

Where did you get the Metrodome numbers?

Don’t dance, just simply answer the question. "

Nicole99511 wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:55 AM:

" To Andy:

You said "Just because YOU like porn doesn't mean yours or anyone else's kids should be exposed to it! " What are they doing, showing it on a big screen in the library? It is on a shelf where no one can see any part of it until they put it in a DVD player. Put a sticker on it that states something like, Explicit material, or sexual content. Then if someone doesn't like that kind of movie, they don't have to rent it but just to pull it off because on person was offended? Well, not everyone is going to like what others like. Gee I don't like avocados, and I am offended that I have to look at them when I go to the produce department. Does that sound stupid? Well of course it does but that is exactly what happened here. Bill was offended so they pulled the movie. Boo hoo. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 23, 2008 9:23 PM:

" To Josh...I took the following (complete with the shouting...to be insulting)..."but do you know the POLICIES". The reason I consider it insulting is because you shouted it and because I have spoken with the Library Director and have explained my conversation with her in detail. Yes we discussed policy as I have stated before. Now I respectfully ask you if you would answer my questions. As to my interchanges with "Voice"...it has no bearing on this thread. If you would like to comment on the other story feel free and I will respond on that thread. If you will not or cannot answer my questions on here please say so. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:11 PM:

" Here Kitty Kitty......... "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 7:39 AM:

" The Cats: We've answered your questions in the Coliseum thread, why are you ignoring ours?

Cat got your tongue again? "

crazyneighbor wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:48 PM:

" 10 to 1 says The Cats and Josh are husband and wife sitting in different rooms of the same house. haha very entertaining, you kids got the whole board. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 22, 2008 6:20 PM:

" cats: Where are the Metrodome facts cats? LOL You've proved nothing about me except that you can steal my words and thoughts and use them as your own (armchair quaterback and many others). You make up facts to support your worthless statements and think you know more than everyone else.

What do you do for a living? I'd be interested to know.

Josh: arguing is pointless with them. They will just continually dodge the questions and make up facts and twist your words.

Where are the Metrodome facts from cats? Do you need me to post your quote as a reminder?

Josh: I have 1000 to 1 they won’t answer that question. Watch.

LOL Classic. "

Josh wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:50 AM:

" I've been following the coliseum thread; it's interesting to read. The Voice asked you for direct evidence to support facts you've given. You have not come back with any, other than to quote his words back to him. If you are going to bring evidence in, be prepared to state where it came from so that everyone can look at. "

Josh wrote on Jul 22, 2008 8:49 AM:

" The Cats, after looking back at my past posts, I don't believe I ever insulted you. Show me where. In my last post, I asked if you knew about the policies of the library. To which you have never directly responded. Besides, you assumed something that I didn't say in an early post, as I explained.

I work at a library, so I know what the policies are. I'm also college educated and have worked hard for everything I received. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:29 PM:

" Josh Voice has been proven on the Coliseum tread to be a liar. He denies what he writes even when I quote it back to him and he makes up quotes. This has been proven by me and others. What of value has he contributed to this discussion? I have respectfully answered all of your questions on here. I spoke to the library director about many issues and I posted them here. Have you done the same? I have visited the library and spoken to the staff have you? Is it your opinion that "policies" can never be changed or that they should be accepted as inviolate? Arm chair quarterbacks abound on these pages. Go put in the work I have and come back and report...as I have. Stop with the insults...those are voices tools (and 1 of his many quotes called them "tools for fools"...certainly apt). "

FYI wrote on Jul 21, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Thanks for looking out for me. I thought I might actually have to exercise my freedom of choice next time I use the library. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Josh: This is typical of The Cats. They make all sorts of ludicrous claims and then show no source to back it up. They then throw insults and twist words to somehow try and prove their point or distract you from the real issues.

Read through some of the Coliseum thread on the most commented list and you can see they never support anything or directly answer a question

When they get backed into a corner they can’t get out of they just stop posting. Or when they are caught in an obvious lie they just deny it.

They have done it every month regarding the Coliseum.

Classic nitwit. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 10:05 AM:

" The Cats: You are a typical armchair quarterback. Everyone else's job is easy to you and you can do it better. You complain about Tom Hamilton, Mayor Markowitz the current and former town council, CIAM, and now the Library Director. It would be interesting to know what you do for a living as I bet it's something menial. If you are so intelligent and can do these jobs better, why don’t you run for office?

As I pretty much proved in the Coliseum thread, you are all talk.

No sources of information for your ‘facts’, and no action on your claims other than lip service.

We’re still waiting in that thread for your source of information on your Metrodome claim and about 10 other questions you continue to dodge.

Cat got your tongue? "

Josh wrote on Jul 21, 2008 8:53 AM:

" The Cats, you keep quoting the Director, but do you know the POLICIES of the library? The Director is hired by and answers to the Library Board. Any decision has to be approved by them, including any committee meeting within the library, such as this. You seem to be missing that part, that the director is not the end all.

I have to agree with Voice of Reason 2; you like to twist words. Why haven't you answered the direct questions asked of you on the Coliseum thread? "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:27 AM:

" The Cats: BTW we're still waiting on your source for the information you posted in the Coliseum thread. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:26 AM:

" The Cats - Boy, you just make friends in all the threads don't you? LOL I see you're twisting someone else's words in here too. "

Mackenzie wrote on Jul 20, 2008 5:41 AM:

" Can you still watch porn on the library computers? I understand that is what was going on with the recessed computers. All you have to do is ask the librarian to override the password and one had access to porn sites. That is why some of the computers were/are recessed so as not to offend the public while the creeps were getting there kicks! What a way to spend my tax dollars! "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:55 PM:

" To Josh...BTW the director said that how many times an item was circulated played no role in the decision to censor it. I asked her about the movie "SAW" she laughed and said she would not discuss individual titles but that she had not seen the movie. I asked her to review it she stated I (not the original complainant) had to "follow the process". I asked her about the movie "Last Tango In Paris" (which she said they had). She had the same answer for me as she did for "SAW". She stated box office revenues was one of the major guidelines they used to select a movie I stated that in "Variety Magazine", it was reported that "Debbie Does Dallas" was one of the highest grossing pictures of all time. I asked if they were going to include that in the collection...again she just laughed. I am glad we have such a fine, articulate, and talented individual deciding what we all get to read and see. Censorship of any kind is a slippery slope and she has started down it head first because of an overreaction to 1 complaint. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 5:46 PM:

" To Josh...maybe you should get involved instead of suggesting things I could do. I have done quite a bit that is not listed on here and am planning to do more. All library employees report to the director (her words). Therefore the "committee" consisted solely of people who report to her. Censorship is what it is. Does it matter which individual is the censor (or in this case which manager gets to pick the people who will be the censors...(same thing now isn't it)? Speaking of assumptions...where exactly in this article does it say Ms. Bouda took any decision to pull the movie to the board for approval? According to her (and this article) it was her decision alone after the secret meeting with her staff. I make no assumptions...I read your words. If I am mistaken please clarify your position for me. Thanks "

Josh wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:35 PM:

" The Cats, you are also making assumptions about who was on the committee. Do you know what departments the librarians on the committee were from? That would have been something to ask the Director about. "

Josh wrote on Jul 19, 2008 4:28 PM:

" The Cats, you twist my words. I did not say that the director is the censor; I agree that it was censorship to remove the item. You are assuming that. The director didn't make the ultimate decision; the committee made a decision and went to the library board with it, who approved it.

I commend you on your suggestions as to who should be on the committee. Did you try to contact any of the board members, by email or telephone? They could have answered your questions. The Director answers to them, after all. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:19 AM:

" To Josh...your words...

"" I'm curious, The Cats, who do you think should be on the committee to look over material?"

I suggested to the Director of the Library when I spoke to her that an independent committee be formed to address these very issues. I suggested a faculty member from IWU and Heartland, and a film teacher from ISU. I suggested a member of the business community, an alderman, and a member of a PTO at one of the local schools. 6 total (1 more than now). I suggested that notes be kept on the discussion and that they be made public. I specifically suggested that no one from the library be on the committee. Her response..."that is not in our policy". I asked if she could change the policy...she said, "it is up to the board". I asked if she could recommend a change to the board and she said..."I don't know". This is who we are dealing with on this issue. They are all afraid to have an open meeting because then they might have to stand up for something, in public, on the record. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:10 AM:

" DT...stop already. Your comments were a lame attempt at humor and have been exposed as such. You disagree with most of the scientific community but you refuse to go out and proclaim it to the world by getting a job in that community and proving them wrong (you said you were a scientist). Your words are hollow and scientifically meaningless. You sound like a bitter, failed science teacher. As to your attack on the Nobel Committee...LOL.

You words...

"This does not exist for the global warmist in their evangelical zeal to tell everyone else to conserve while they continue to live lives with huge carbon footprints."

What exactly is a "warmist"? You paint with a broad brush for someone who says he is a scientist. How in the world can you hope to be taken seriously using this kind of generality? LOL. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Biarfanx...your words...

"Careful selection, not censorship, is key in any library,"...it was in the library already. Therefore, it was selected. If you think the process should be changed then change it. As it stands now they review nothing before putting it in the library. A group of 4 people, all of whom depend on the library director for their jobs is not an independent committee. Are you willing to let me be the censor? "

The Cats wrote on Jul 19, 2008 11:00 AM:

" To Josh...your words...

"ES, I agree that it was censorship to remove the dvd,"

Why keep posting? You are agree the library director is the censor for all material in the Bloomington Public Library. Is there more that needs to be said? Sounds a lot like Joe McCarthy in the 50's. Remember when "Catcher In The Rye" was banned? How about "Catch 22"? A committee was responsible for both of those decisions. She has been elected (no that's not true) to be the arbiter of good taste (and what we should see and watch) for the community. By the way he did not follow the process...he complained to the newspaper and the radio stations. The "committee" formed was not an independent committee...it was her and 4 people who answer to her. You think that is fair and impartial? LOL at you continued posts. "

Josh wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:37 PM:

" Sure the guy should have followed the right procedure and gone straight to the BP staff, director and board. He didn't; nothing can change that. The fact is that a committee was formed, looked at the material and decided to remove it. The procedure is there for anyone who asks. All they have to do is ask. One factor everyone seems to be missing is whether or not the item circulated many times or not. That would be a big factor in whether it is removed. Obviously this item did not circulate very much. Now there is room for another dvd to take it's place. "

Josh wrote on Jul 18, 2008 5:34 PM:

" ES, I agree that it was censorship to remove the dvd, but I also agree with the Librarian. She explained, in her earlier posts, that there is a procedure that any patron needs to follow in order to challenge any particular material. She is right in that the final decision to remove the dvd rested with the committee, not with you or I. Do you agree? Or did you not read that part of the posts? This situation started with him and ended with the committee. Would you expect something to be removed if you had challenged it? If you would, than why are you posting about this gentleman? "

Reader715 wrote on Jul 18, 2008 2:55 PM:

" Good grief...it was labeled...it was checked out...get over it. Unbelievable that the library had to pull the book. "

ES wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:24 PM:

" Josh, let's look logically, please try it. Did I call IlLibrarian a name? Nope. She mention in two posts how she has a MLS as she smuggly said "we MLSes don't go through that much grad school just so we can veto your favorite cheesy movies with bad sex..." Those are her words not mine. She made her degrees an issue, not me. If you read my post, I told her such degrees only matter to those who have them. Now try again Josh and be objective. Besides, if she is so intelligent, shouldn't she see that censorship based on one person (a person who did not go to the library but the press as Ms. MLS neglected to mention) should not occur. "

bairfanx wrote on Jul 18, 2008 1:08 PM:

" "all libraries have to pick and choose what materials they have time to process, space to fit, and how much of a patron demand there is for the local demographic. Careful selection, not censorship, is key in any library, and it seems that BPL has simply deselected an item that through due process was deemed a poor match within the library's selection guidelines."

This is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard. The materials have already been processed, and there was already space for it. Money had obviously already been spent on it as well. A DVD in a case takes up less than a half an inch width on a shelf. Depending on how it's arranged, that could be a half an inch of depth as well. After you already have something, the act of pulling it because someone deemed it offensive is censorship, plain and simple. "

DT wrote on Jul 18, 2008 10:13 AM:

" I think having a scientific discussion is what has been missing from the climate change issue. Anyone who doesn't toe the Gore-led line is excluded from the so-called discussion. Science is supposed to be open minds and open discussion. This does not exist for the global warmist in their evangelical zeal to tell everyone else to conserve while they continue to live lives with huge carbon footprints. A previous response addressed the UN reported signatories. Nobel prizes have been a joke since Arafat was awarded the Peace prize. Gore refuses to debate anyone on the subject. We had open discussions in my classes to examine all sides of issues including evolution and, at that time, the coming ice age. Parents were overjoyed that students learned to look at all sides of an issue and make an intelligent decision rather than merely buying the latest media hype. There are several posters here who could have benefitted from my classes. "

Josh wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:54 AM:

" I'm curious, The Cats, who do you think should be on the committee to look over material?

To try to answer your questions, everyone is a censor, to some degree. As the librarian said, they have to decide what to order based on space, and money. They can't purchase and store everything, which means some things are not purchased. Would you call that censorship? If you worked in that department of the library, than you would be helping make the decisions. Obviously you don't.

To ES, it doesn't matter how many master's degrees you have; you can still be ignorant, as you're showing by name-calling. Your Masters is obviously not in Library Science, nor does the Cats have any background in it. Do you have any substance to add to the debate, or do you just like to insult people? "

The Cats wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:25 AM:

" To DT...then you obviously know more about global warming than 1000's of scientists world wide and the Nobel Committee. Must be frustrating for an ex-science teacher (?) to know more than most of the scientists in the world and not be recognized as one of the top people in the scientific community. If you think having a scientific discussion (whether you agree with the person or not) is worse than watching a fictional movie then I would think most of the parents of the school children you taught are glad you teach no longer. BTW you are the one who labeled your post as a joke not I. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 18, 2008 9:20 AM:

" To IL Librarian...typical of those like you (convinced they know what is best for all) to ignore the substance of the letter and revert back to spin. My question to you is simple...are you the censor or not? If you are not the censor for all library material is it OK if I am? Simple questions really. As to the substance of my position it is clear a library director and 4 of her SUBORDINANT employees, reacting to 1 complaint, pulled a movie. This is hardly an unbiased review board. If, as you claim, libraries "pick and choose" then why not do it before they put the material out for all to see? BTW it is typical that you are running away in view of the fact that you have no position to argue and you refuse to answer questions. LOL. "

DT wrote on Jul 18, 2008 7:47 AM:

" I don't think, Cats, that there was anything in what you quoted which is not factual. But then I taught science rather than journalism... "

IL Librarian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:21 PM:

" To ES: I can't say I've got much to respond to you except that were this an internet forum, your belligerent comments would be considered 'trolling' as everything you've said thus far has been more aimed at attacking other commentors than actually addressing the article and responses in general to it. I was actually hoping for more dialogue and less flaming and am now disinterested in continuing to check the article for responses if discussion has descended into name-calling. "

andy wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:56 PM:

" E.S.: My education, or lack thereof; and judgemental attitude are none of your business. those who live in glass houses.............stick with the issue and leave the unecessary comments out. your immaturity is showing. I don't care how many Masters' degrees you have; education does not necessarily negate ignorance. "

ES wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:06 PM:

" Il Librarian, your argument would have more substance if the patron complained to the library; but this guy went to media outlets first. Try using your Master's degree and any logic course you had.

I also have a Masters and I am not that impressed with your smarter-than-thou attitude. I have forty-fours beyond a Master's as well, and guess what; it really does not matter to anyone except me. So you should can the attitude. "

IL Librarian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 4:33 PM:

" to "The Cats" -- all libraries have to pick and choose what materials they have time to process, space to fit, and how much of a patron demand there is for the local demographic. Careful selection, not censorship, is key in any library, and it seems that BPL has simply deselected an item that through due process was deemed a poor match within the library's selection guidelines. In cases where there is an overwhelming local demand for an item, it's hardly likely to be pulled, so it's assumable the film did not leave the library that much to begin with.

As to you labeling me a censor...being quite young, fun, and a little bit wicked I could certainly recommend many better "adult movies" I've seen than Shortbus if you enjoyed it that desperately. Trust me, we MLSes don't go through that much grad school just so we can veto your favorite cheesy movies with bad sex... "

The Cats wrote on Jul 17, 2008 3:39 PM:

" To DT...your words...
" I agree with those below who believe it is worse for our kids to see Gore than this movie. Mine know that he is nothing more than a money-grubbing hypocrite that spews misinformation and they don't want to see, hear, or read anything he has to say. What? You didn't mean Al Gore? Nevermind. "

Doesn't sound like any joke on the first year of SNL as Gore was not a Nobel Prize winner then. Your "joke" fell flat. Most jokes have a basis in fact which makes them funny...no such basis exists regarding your comments about Gore. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 17, 2008 3:36 PM:

" So "Il. Librarian"...I am so glad you have seen the movie and have decided that it is not of value. I saw it and thought it was. So are you the censor now? As a librarian it is sad to think that you condone censorship of any kind particularly in this case when the complain was made by 1 person. This group that decided all reported to the director of the library so it was hardly unbiased. The entire episode has proven that their whole system needs an overhaul. When I asked Ms. Buoda about hat she replied "well it is policy". When I asked her if policy could be changed she said it was up the board. When I asked if she had input she stated some...I guess if the board trusts her so little she is not an advocate for the public at all. What will be next to go? "

IL Librarian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Mr. Swearingen had every right to make any complaint he wished; any library patron has the same option whenever he or she finds material offensive. It is misdirected to blame the removal upon him and highly inappropriate for persons here to publicly harass him for his personal ideals, not to mention disproportionate since his objection was to material rather than a personal attack on an individual. Whether you agree with Mr. Swearingen or strongly disagree, the assembled committee ultimately held the power and responsibility and comments should be directed accordingly. As a librarian with a Master's in Library and Information Science, I will state that I have seen the film and its artistic, educational and entertainment value is so low as to be negligible and I would agree with the library's ruling. Public funds and library space are limited and to be used carefully with a great deal of thought and wisdom. "

azlibrarian wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:32 PM:

" Just an FYI....many libraries do not restrict what children check out. A parent must apply and sign for their childs library card thus giving permission for the child to use any and all resources at the library. This includes all books, all movies, all magazines and access to the internet. It is the parent's responsibility to monitor what their child does at the library. And yes, I am a parent of 2 and I agree with this. Library workers should not be expected to babysit children or make parental decisions for them. If Bill is worried about what his children might see at a library, then I suggest that he accompany them there. He might also go with them to school, summer camp and church just to be on the safe side. "

dalmanites wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:25 PM:

" Brenstalka, in view of these comments, could you take your position as one who has actually seen the movie, knows of its credits and awards, and file a complaint with the library about removing an artistically meritorious movie from the shelves (while allowing Saw I and Saw III to remain, both disgusting movies). If someone with knowledge of the movie were to contest the removal, it would be an interesting day. "

delinich wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:49 PM:

" Funny how so many can talk about it being pulled, but no one will put their name behind an appeal. The patron who made the complaint was willing to step up and put his name out there, but so far their has any local tax-paying library card holder been willing to appeal? Doesnt look like it. Looks like the people who count (those who pay the taxes for the library) have spoken loud and clear by not filing an appeal. "

ES wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:55 AM:

" Andy, thanks for admitting it. Now if you can admit to a lack of education and a sense of judgemental attitude, we are all set. "

DT wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:00 AM:

" A joke should not require credibility and the recurring skit was from the first year of SNL. Emily's editorials during the Chevy Chase news? "

bairfanx wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:25 PM:

" Please stop using the word pornography to describe something that has artistic merit. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:25 PM:

" To DT...I am in my 50's and used to watch SNL when it was funny. Are you too young to remember those days? Sorry I do not use SNL skits to try to establish credibility on these pages. "

isabelle wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:09 PM:

" I agree it's appropriate for there to be regulations about what children can and cannot check-out. I wish the BPL would have developed these procedures, and avoided this unnecessary censorship. "

andy wrote on Jul 16, 2008 4:07 PM:

" To ES: Oooops, you caught me.....I really am a Nazi in disguise and so is Mr. Swearingen.....beware all you porn movie watchers out there; your rights are in danger!! Relax, it's only a movie; not mass genocide. (And not a very good one at that.) Before you ask, yes, I DID see the movie, and I've seen home movies with better acting. I stand by my previous posts, and am on Mr. Swearingen's side. And that's all I have to say about that...... "

DT wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:10 PM:

" to Cats: It was meant to be a joke. Are you too young to recognize a recurring SNL skit? On a more serious note, there also thousands of scientists including many of the pre-iminent climatologist who do not believe that global warming is a manmade phenomenon. In addition, many of them who are listed as signing off on the UN report actually signed only that they had reviewed it and were never asked whether they agreed with the conclusions. However, this is way off topic, so back to censorship..... "

RealityCheck wrote on Jul 16, 2008 3:07 PM:

" To yaitsme - back off your high horse. All I said was I admire his courage in sticking to his principles. I DIDN'T say I agreed with his principles. One thing Liberals tend to conveniently forget is that free speech is for everyone, not just those people and organizations supported by Liberals. It takes a great deal of guts to stand up for what you believe in when faced with such angry resistance. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:57 PM:

" I found it interesting that one of the main criteria she uses is how much money a movie grosses at the box office. That seems absurd to me. In closing let me remind all that the Library board President is a woman named Patsy Bowles. I have her phone number but will not post it here (big brother would censor it our anyway in spite of the woman's position). Ms. Bouda will give that number to you. In all , I found Ms. Bouda to be polite and pleasant. She was, however, disingenuous, vague, and quick to fall back on policy...like she had no input into those policies. I asked her why they could not convene an "independent" group to review complaints (perhaps a film professor at ISU and a faculty member from IWU and ISU along with a business person or 2) she didn't seem too interested. Maybe it is because they don't work for her so she cannot control them. I did tell her I was posting this. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:52 PM:

" I told her there were many books and films that I found unfit for young adults (or that I thought was "porn"). She stated that if anyone from the public wanted to complain there was a form to fill out. Once the form was filled out she would convene another group of 4 employees and they would read or view the material in question, check the reviews on line, and make a determination. I would suggest to all that you go down and do just that. It seems to me she would not have enough hours in the day to review, with the process she insists she would follow, 500 or so complaints and this travesty would be exposed for what it was...a cave in at the request of 1 person. continued "

The Cats wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:47 PM:

" I spent 19 minutes talking to Ms. Bouda today. She said she had looked at this blog but later, when I told her of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to her decision, she stated she had not looked at this blog. When I asked why the library did not simply ask for proof of age she sated "then we would be restricting young adults access to material (?)...yes she actually said that. When I stated that they were restricting everyone's access to the material with their current policy she had not comment...simply illogical. Talk about Catch 22 (a book that was burned and banned years ago). The Committee of people who reviewed this was her and 4 of her subordinate employees. There were no minutes kept but she insists this was an "open process"...continued "

thinkaboutit wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:38 PM:

" To Bill Malett, et.al.........

As per BPL's policy, they have "NO" restrictions on young children checking out ANY materials in their system. You can argue about whether something is pornographic or not, that's not the issue.

The IMPORTANT ISSUE is that BPL has taken away the right away from parents about what their children are allowed or not allowed to see. If some want to allow their children access to materials deemed inappropriate.......... so be it, but allow the parent to make that distinction. It used to be that way a few years ago, but was changed not long ago. I suspect they changed the policy to make things easier for them, especially now that they have "self check out."

As for those that think parents need to police what their children see........... responsible parents do. But, that doesn't mean children don't do things they know they aren't supposed to.

I think BPL needs to restrict certain materials from children, unless parents give the library approval for access, and with computer check out, that's not hard for the library to police....... "

The Cats wrote on Jul 16, 2008 12:20 PM:

" To DT...thanks for acknowledging that you do not believe in the concept of global warming. You personally repudiate 1000's of scientists, most of the worlds governments, and the Nobel Committee, with your learned words. LOL at your silly post. "

ES wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:26 AM:

" Oh and by the way folks, for the last two days, Ms. Bouda has not answered her calls and just leaves the voice mail to screen. Nothing like standing by your decision and a willingness to defend it to the people. More cowardly acts. "

ES wrote on Jul 16, 2008 9:22 AM:

" Andy, so if he stood up for his beliefs against something else, say a non-christian religion, you would be ok with that? He is one person and he should not have a right to decide what is acceptable for everyone else. By the way, if you answered yes to the first question, you now know how the Nazi's got started. Oh and I suggest we all call the library and let them know how we feel. I also hope that in the next election, we have an opportunity to vote out members of the library board. I would vote for Woody Woodpecker and Chilly Willie over these people. "

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

" I have to agree with the majority of posters' on this story. It's censorship, and a slippery slope to be starting on.

I applaud Bill Swearingen for having the courage to stand by his beliefs, but he is misguided in his attempt.

He went about it the wrong way. He didn't need to run to the radio and Pantagraph; he needed to talk with the library staff, director and library board, instead of bypassing them. The dvd was clearly marked with a label on the cover; he knew what he was getting into before he checked it out. To believe otherwise is a lie. "

DT wrote on Jul 16, 2008 7:19 AM:

" I agree with those below who believe it is worse for our kids to see Gore than this movie. Mine know that he is nothing more than a money-grubbing hypocrite that spews misinformation and they don't want to see, hear, or read anything he has to say. What? You didn't mean Al Gore? Nevermind. "

yaitsme wrote on Jul 16, 2008 1:20 AM:

" Realitycheck, you need one! what is good about censorship??? I am glad that the man has principals, more power to him! But, it is wrong and against the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the people in this town to suppress ANY material just because 1 person made a complaint about the material. If this film offends someone than they just DO NOT CHECK IT OUT of the library. Not remove it from the shelves. Get a grip on reality and if you REALLY want these actions going on where you live then move to a country that decides what you can or cannot read or view!! Personally, I live in AMERICA where people have RIGHTS!! ( Which by the way BPL stomped all over) I am not finished by a long shot either, I do plan on letting the library know my feelings on this matter! "

bairfanx wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:46 PM:

" "andy," Bill standing up for his beliefs caused a library to pull something from its shelves. He has every right to his beliefs, but when they start affecting others, he has no right to them.

Anyone should be able to check out any movie or book. In the event that a child does, it's the responsibility of the parent to ensure that it is appropriate.

A bit of advice: unbending, in any variety, prevents growth as a human being. "

RealityCheck wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:38 PM:

" Thank you, Mr. Swearingen, for standing up for what you believe in. It took courage and you are to be admired for sticking to your principles. "

andy wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:35 PM:

" P. S.......I would rather my kid watch sex than violence and gore any day........but not irresponsible sex. Everybody needs to grow up and leave Bill alone. Poor guy is just standing up for his beliefs. Or maybe a bunch of you should go stage a protest at the library. Change comes to those who have the temerity to speak up and stand up for themselves. "

andy wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:32 PM:

" To "fishpoop": yes, children can check out anything they want at the library......he probably does hear worse at school, but that's not something I have control over as a parent. I don't let my child watch pornographic TV. I DO talk to him and answer any questions he has about sex. But I don't want him to get the wrong idea about careless, non-monogamous relationships; that wouldn't be responsible of me. AND Bill did not even mention anything about the bible.......who says he's a bible-thumper? Maybe he's not even Christian. By the way, there's nothing wrong with unbending Christian morals ; ) "

smapdi wrote on Jul 15, 2008 3:02 PM:

" There is a definite misfire in the brain, Lindini, that gives a pass to a movie like Saw but sets into uproar over Shortbus. Mind you, I've seen neither, but it's not about those movies. It's about the fact that we'd sooner allow our children to watch people being dismembered than having sex. One word: Hangups. We just can't deal with sex. Never mind that two (or more!) people might be enjoying life - maybe even love - together. Can't have that. But an angry sadist harming/maiming/killing another? Sure... what the heck? As for "art", to the best of my knowledge both aforementioned movies employ no small bit of art in bringing us the visuals. I'd give both a pass. But if I was going to complain about one, you can bet it would be Saw... many times over before even straight-up/real porn. "

Helen C wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:35 PM:

" To Bill Malett,
This is a direct quote, in reference to Bloomington Public Library's policies on who may check out a movie--any movie--quoted from the article appearing July 1 in the Pantagraph:

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

I don't know about Normal's library, but Bloomington is the one in question regarding this film, and this is the stance that BPL takes on checking out materials. There are no restrictions, and a juvenile card can be used, by a juvenile, to check out R rated movies as well as un-rated movies. A tax supported library allows children and teenagers to check out any movie, without parental consent, even though those same kids could not rent R rated movies from Blockbuster or Family Video due to their age, and they could not view them at a theater without a parent. "

cdequaker wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:32 PM:

" Having read all the other comments, I have nothing new to say--just wanted to add my voice and support to all those who grasp the danger and the precedent being set here. The library made a poor decision. Judging from most of the responses, they are not standing up for the community's values, only those of the complaining party. They do not have to put the item on display, but they should be in the business of making material--any legal material--available, not censoring it because one, or more, persons are offended by it. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 15, 2008 2:05 PM:

" To ECONODUDE...here are your words..."

"If, on the other hand, he had reported to authorities that he believed he saw somebody carry a long gun on the property, but it was only a pipe, he would have been applauded for doing the right thing. (Both are examples of an object/activity deemed to put the public at some kind of risk.)"

Did I misstate your position? There clearly is no comparison between small group of people bending to the will of 1 person (over the will of 95% of the posters on this board at least) and that of reporting suspicious activity to the police...at least in my opinion. I am sorry if you are offended. "

The Original JD wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:50 PM:

" Pornography is all a matter of perspective. I remember when a group of people tried to get the statue of David removed from a museum stating it was pornographic. Most Greek statues could be considered pornographic to some people, so think that showing an ankle is just one step short of adultery. Removing it from the shelves is no different than bowing down to the the type of people who tried, and are still trying, to get books like Tom Sawyer, and the Catcher in the Rye removed from the shelves. It is censorship. "

thoughts a million wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:25 PM:

" Mr. Swearingen would have been more sincere and convincing if he had just approached the library director. But, no, he had to go on radio and go running to the Pantagraph. This is more about him than it is about the video. "

floor10 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 12:25 PM:

" As a former manager of a local video store, I was constantly amazed how many parents would rent "R" rated films for their children - if the "R" was for language, violence, disembowelment, gore, blood, or beheading. But if the "R" was because of an exposed nipple, the movie was unwholesome, and not appropriate for little Johnny. Wake up, parents. Use some common sense. Stop teaching your children to revel in violence,and fear sex. Theach them the truth. If we become a country that can impose totalitarian change because something offends one person, we are finished. "

Brenstalka wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:55 AM:

" To mprogers: My hand is raised. I saw it in early 2007 when it first hit DVD. The movie had great reviews and won awards. I enjoy independent films. "

bairfanx wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Straight from the dictionary.

Learn what the words you use mean. A film with a plot and actors (not porn stars) that receives 6 awards at various film festivals and is nominated for 5 more has artistic merit.

This is a movie that looks at relationships in an honest light. I'm sorry that offends so many of you, but that speaks volumes about your personalities.

I'll be renting this from the locally owned video store in town out of spite. I hope the rest of you do the same to see the "depravity," we were allowing to be rented from the Bloomington library.

I'd say I'm awaiting the removal of books, but we all know our children don't read anymore, and their parents even less. I guess it means those of us who do won't have our options censored. "

noone wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:54 AM:

" I too am sick of all the conserviatives trying to force their veiws on me. WHO ARE YOU to tell me what i can and cannot see. Oh the children, please. kids today have seen it all. i'm willing to bet they know more about sex than you do. Ask your teenager what atm means and you'll be surprized it's not about a bank. thanks Bill, you stink. "

yaitsme wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:29 AM:

" I would like to let BPL know how outraged I am at their complete lack of disregard to our constitutional rights!! I personally have not seen this movie and am quite likely to never want to. But that is not the point, Someone else has decided for me that it is too objectionable for viewing. That IS censorship and also a violation of the constitution! What's next on the agenda? Mark Twain? The Bible?? If they read the bible they would most certainly pull it from the shelves! It has incest, murder , bigamy ect. ect. Bloomington PUBLIC Library must only serve the part of the community that agrees with their views on morality. Sieg Hiel BPL!!!! "

isabelle wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:18 AM:

" How disappointing. Burning books is just around the corner, I suppose. "

Econodude wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:09 AM:

" To, The Cats, c'mon. At least have a little respect and don't twist my post. "

Voice of Reason2 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:07 AM:

" The Cats: I can hardly believe it but we agree on this! I guess you can be sensible at times. :-) "

williammcc1 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:04 AM:

" Maybe the library did the right thing but if they are going to do this type of thing then they should be consistent so Dr Spock must go as must most books dealing with child birth. I have seen those pictures and these are for children? (That is sarcasm by the way) What ever happened to personal responsibility? I guess in a country where you can sue for any reason personal responsibility is no longer expected from anyone and parents are not expected to be responsible for what there children watch read or do. "

lindini wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:56 AM:

" A sad day for both the library and the community. I was just at the library last night btw and saw yet again both Saw I and Saw III sitting pretty as you please on the self. Don't tell me they don't know what those movies are about! As usual Gof forbid you look at naked people but gratuitous violence and rampant dehumanizing behavior? Bring it on! Our country has gone mad.... "

DT wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:54 AM:

" Sorry, Meh. I meant to say a movie where the word is used or a comedian who uses the word in general rather than directly at someone. it just seems that liberals (since you generalized about conservatives) are awfully selective in whether to protect the offender or the offendee. An employee is fired in D.C. for correctly using the word "niggardly", which has nothing in common with that other n-word, when an ignorant person took offense. A commissioner in Texas is raked over the coals for calling something a "black hole" when an ignorant person took offense. In this case, a person was offended by a movie and gets castigated for saying so. Protect all or protect none, else you're simply a hypocrite. "

Paul J wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:36 AM:

" 'Responsible' or not, this is censorship. Plain and simple.

Also if your kid rents a movie like this from the library and sees nudity, what do you think will happen? You may have them ask you about the nudity... You might have to answer some uncomfortable questions... You might have a healthy conversation with your child about a very fundamental part of human life (I am refering the sex)... Or I guess we can believe society and assume the child will head straight out and have sex with everything and blow up... or whatever the current theory is.

I'm glad Mr. Swearington feels like he accomplished something, and he seems happy. My only humble suggestion would be to help society in a way that does not restrict the choices of everyone else. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:29 AM:

" To Andy, Jo Jo, ECONODUDE, and Bill...4 people out of 46 positing on here agree with your position. To the other 42 start complaining today. ECONODUDE compares censorship to someone carrying a pipe bomb...what a stretch (that simply is not an analogy that is credible). To Jo Jo...most in Germany in 1933 did not think restricting the rights of Jews were such a big deal either. It is a slippery slope. I am going to demand that the library pull all books related to the war in Iraq as it is clearly obscene. Where does censorship end and who gets to decide. The Supreme Court certainly could not define pornography. "

Fishpoop wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:23 AM:

" Andy you have to be kidding me, for one I highly doubt the library would be allowing a 13 year old to be renting the movie, and two, I am sure you child hears a lot worse at school, tv and the playground! This guy took this way to far and bible thumpers like this make me ill! "

The Cats wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:21 AM:

" To Big Brother...man you are perfectly named. Do you want to live in that world? BTW I will be the decider there...is that OK with you too? "

normal1s wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:21 AM:

" I find it strange that a country who worships handguns and allows gays to get married can even find anything to call obscene or pornographic. "

The Cats wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:19 AM:

" To Andy...so you advocate censorship. Are you OK with me being the censor? "

Meh wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:18 AM:

" DT, if you can't see the difference, I pity you, but I'll explain anyway.

1. Shortbus - no one is forcing you to borrow it, watch it, or even know it exists.
2. Sluring someone to their face - its harassment and and threatening.

Can you even see the difference? Conservatives seem to be grossly offended by the concept that something offensive to them could even exist which leads to their busybodyism. "

wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:13 AM:

" i have to wonder....is this persons REAL problem, teaching our children about sex at an age he deems to young? get a clue buster..what these kids know at 10 or 11 would make Mr.Rodgers blush a very cherry red. [gbhs] the only way i know of to keep a child in the dark is to keep them home. no movies..no tv..no library's..no schools. yep thats IT we shall keep the children in the cellar till the age of.....how about 27 that sound about right Mr Bill... kids learn about life any way they can ...curiosity is the gift the LORD granted us, no one has the right to deny us that !!! "

ekim wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Oh yeah, and I find Bill Swearingen's views pornographic. Can you please remove him from my library? how can I be expected to enjoy my freedoms with such porn being spewd from within my library? "

monkey71 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:32 AM:

" I believe he knew what he was checking out. The cover completely says what the movei is all about. The Plot: " A group of New Yorkers get caught up in their romantic-sexual milieu converge at an underground salon infamous for its blend of art, music, politics, and carnality." I think the library did the wrong thing by pulling an independent film. "

ES wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:32 AM:

" Censorship is censorship. And whereas I agree the library has a right to decide what goes on the shelf, this is an example of ONE person who deemed something was not appropriate AFTER it was there. So if I go in there and pick up a Romance Novel that I find a bit racy, the library Board will consider my opinions and then remove the book? OK, get ready to be busy library Board, as I suggest we all go in there and start pulling books that we personally feel are questionable or we personally do not like. I dislike GWB, so all books that mention him, which I deem as socially unacceptable, must be reviewed. Remember: I dislike something, you HAVE to review and pull it. You have set a very interesting path Bloomington PUBLIC Library, but if that is what you want, OK. "

Econodude wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:31 AM:

" It's interesting how Mr. Swearingen is lambasted for bringing attention to the library a video he felt was pornographic. Members of the library board agreed. (It was the board, not Mr. Swearingen, that made the decision to remove the video.) If, on the other hand, he had reported to authorities that he believed he saw somebody carry a long gun on the property, but it was only a pipe, he would have been applauded for doing the right thing. (Both are examples of an object/activity deemed to put the public at some kind of risk.) Funny how people think they right to say or see anything saying they want in a public place. "

menegerie6 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:25 AM:

" Boooooooooooooo. I don't ever like to see something pulled from the shelves just because "someone" finds it troubling. It's a dangerous path to begin walking down.

Why is it impossible to restrict what children check out? Especially movies, which are rated (and "unrated" movies could simply warrant a bit of logic and policy. It's kind of easy to tell the difference between Disney and Shortbus).

If the parents are not willing or are too busy to keep track of what their own children are checking out, how difficult would it really be to not allow children to check out movies that are not rated for them?

I'm serious. It doesn't seem too difficult an idea to implement. Please check on it BPL. "

Adam wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:18 AM:

" Wow that sure is a load off my mind! Now I can get back to watching regular everyday clean TV, you know, with erectile disfunction pill commercials and Girls Gone Wild ads run every 10 minutes! Who knows they might fill the time between when the murderer-rapist takes his next victim and the heroes of CSI:Miami shoot him in the head!

There are influences for kids everywhere. Take some time and some responsibility and teach them right from wrong. Instead of trying to rid the world of everything you believe is wrong. "

mprogers wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:09 AM:

" OK, raise your hands those of you who have actually seen this movie.

I thought so.... "

Ekim wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:03 AM:

" dumb. Pander and censorship. But at least someone feels like a big Man now. "

jojo wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Gosh! Alot of angry comments, but I think that people might be responding with their knee-jerk reaction and when they stop and think about it this isn't really such a big deal. I know, it's censorship, but most of you probably didn't know the DVD was there in the first place. If you want to see it or have your kids see it go rent it. There are probably alot of other movies that aren't there because they didn't make the cut, but you aren't complaining about that. How is this different? "

gerty1963 wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:33 AM:

" freedom of free speech - means the right to speak freely in public. Shame it interfer with this fellow's personal movie taste ...btw what was he doing with a so called ponographic film in the first place? I mean you usually have to read what the movie is about BEFORE you check it out. Just wondering. "

PrairieGurl wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Sometimes it's embarrassing being a PrairieGurl. Could we look more backward? I look forward to the day when the so-called conservative majority around here finally gets a clue. It ain't conservative. And it ain't a majority. The rest of us got the clue a long time ago. "

shechem wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:23 AM:

" This is a community, public library. Anyone can check out books there, my kids (10-14) have checked out R rated movies there before on thier own cards. It is not that closely monitored.

All you crybabys, stop being cheap@$$s and go buy or RENT (as you frequently posted in error - library books, movies are free) the movie if you need your porn of the day. "

DT wrote on Jul 15, 2008 7:14 AM:

" The next time someone is offended by the use of the n-word or being called a q****, I will expect you all to attack the person offended rather than the offender, just as you have done here. "

chitowngirl wrote on