The rights of the patron outweigh the librarian's personal ideals

From my own backyard--I even was offered a job there, once, but it fell through:

Librarians Won't Give Child 'Porn' Book

I wouldn't call The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen porn. I'm not sure I would want my 12-year-old reading it, but on the other hand, isn't that the parent's decision? Seems the library thinks so. These women went against policy to keep what is in their opinion a 'filthy' book out of the hands of a patron. But that's rather subjective and emotional.

Granted, I don't know the context of the supposedly lewd material. I have read the original comic books but not this particular book. But I know there are always people willing to decide what others should read or do. I remember a child of friends getting into trouble at school because she drew stallions as they really are, anatomically correct. We tend to 'protect' children from reality sometimes to the point where it is either detrimental, in terms of them not knowing about life and being ready for what it grants them, or sometimes it turns out to be ludicrous because kids today know a lot more about sex than many stuffy adults. Once we as librarians take the role of the obscenity police we cross a line. Kids mature at different rates, and a 12-year-old is on the cusp of being a teenager. The best judge of what she can handle would most likely be the parents, not two busybodies who censored a book in the name of protecting someone from what they saw as pornography.

I will point out that comic books (and presumably the graphic novels which collect the story into one book) are rated much like movies. Mature comics usually are labelled such for people 13 and over. I don't know if this was rated mature, or how the library deals with the different ratings. But the point is these women should not have taken it upon themselves to cancel the girl's hold on the book simply because of their own opinions, so I think the case was handled correctly. I wouldn't be surprised if a case for wrongful termination will be tried, but I doubt they'll get a lot of support from the library community, as the profession as a whole subscribes to ethics that support the rights of the reader/patron over our own personal beliefs as to suitability. When I was the same age a librarian refused to let me read a John Jakes novel, The Bastard, I believe it was called, upon which a popular television miniseries at the time had been based, even though I was reading at a college level and was fairly mature for my age. Apparently I could watch the stuff on TV but not read about it. It incensed me then, and it still stings today.

Thanks to Blake from LISNews for the head's up.

PS Do TV news websites even have editors? The story used 'lye' for 'lie', for example. I know it's easy to make typos (I do them myself, but I just have myself to rely upon), but it used to be there were people to catch such errors. I constantly find spelling and grammar errors on professional websites, advertising, even published books. Is editing a dying vocation? Just wondering.