Posted on 11/21/2003 8:05:46 AM PST by marshmallow
WILLIAMSBURG -- Although what he did could draw a $1,000 fine, John Callahan stands by his actions.
Callahan, 77, frequently goes to the Williamsburg Library to catch up on the news, and he occasionally browses the magazine rack. Last week, the cover of one in particular jumped out.
“It was right at eye level,” Callahan said, referring to the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine The Advocate.
The cover of the Nov. 11 edition features a young white man and a black man, both bare-chested, engaging in a kiss. Their mouths don't quite touch. It may have been a spoof of “the kiss” by Madonna and Britney Spears.
“I thought of my grandchildren, and I thought of impressionable teenagers, so I took the cover off,” Callahan said. He ripped it off and took it home in disgust.
A self-described liberal who served in the Marine Corps during World War II and is now retired, Callahan said people, including gays, should have the freedom to be whoever they want. But he doesn't think his tax dollars should go to support a magazine that, in his eyes, is “too much.”
“As a taxpayer, I think it's terrible,” Callahan said. “They don't put Playboy in the library because it's considered immoral and indecent.”
In response, library director John Moorman said he's concerned that tearing off the cover is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
“Defacing library materials is not the proper way to handle this,” Moorman said. “People need to be more tolerant.”
Vandalism of library materials is nothing new, but Moorman said this is the first time that someone has defaced The Advocate since the library began carrying it in January 2001. Moorman said the library subscribed to the magazine after receiving many requests from members of the community.
“We represent all the taxpayers,” he said. “We are a community organization, and we serve the whole community.
Moorman has carved out a reputation as a free speech proponent. He has resisted installing filtering software on the library's Internet computers because he believes supervision by parents trumps censorship by institutions. Many libraries have put in filters under parental and political pressure.
The Nov. 11 edition of The Advocate appears to be racier than usual. Previous issues feature fully clothed men smiling and laughing, and the most recent edition features TV-actor Chad Allen holding a stack of Christmas gifts while dressed for the holidays.
Barry Trott, the library's adult services manager, said it's not uncommon for magazines to spice up the cover to attract readers.
On the same magazine rack as The Advocate sits the November issue of Cosmopolitan featuring a buxom Britney Spears. Down a little farther, a scantily clad Jessica Simpson is shown holding a vacuum cleaner on the cover of Rolling Stone.
“There is going to be something in the library that is offensive to everyone in the community, including me,” he continued.
With the new issue of The Advocate on display, library staff has taped a warning sign in bright orange informing people that they face a fine if they rip a cover off.
“I just didn't feel that they needed to brandish it,” Callahan said. “It just rubbed me the wrong way.”
Garbage. There is a huge amount of reading material (though growing less by the day) which is excluded from public libraries precisely because it is considered to be offensive and inappropriate. Homosexual propaganda is no longer amongst it, unfortunately.
Had the magazine had a cover which was racially offensive (hypothetical of course, as it would not have made it to the shelf in the first place) this act would be called "civil disobedience" and would be hailed as "heroic" and "principled". Unfortunately, because of the subject matter at issue, the problem in this case is identified to lie with the protester, rather than the display. He needs to be "more tolerant".
The real need is for the re-education nazis to get out of our faces.
I think that says it pretty clearly. What about holding the librarian who subscribed to this garbage accountable for fraudulent spending of taxpayer dollars? He would certainly be fired if the library subscribed to Playboy, Penthouse or Hustler with taxpayer dollars. At least Playboy actually has legitimate articles, written by nationally recognized writers (such as Ben Stein).
I'll tell you...
They won't be happy until they can "do it" in public on a park bench and those who don't applaud will be jailed for a hate crime.
Hogwash...they couldnt care less what the majority of taxpayers want or believe in...they are a little liberal enclave of promoting the liberals agenda...
He is a Marine...he saw the enemy of America...and attacked without hestiation or concern for the personal consequences the enemy might bring on him...
If only all Americans who believe as he does were willing to do what he did...
Good job, Mr. Callahan, it's never too late to wake up!
Let me be the first to pony-up $ 10 to help this gentleman pay the fine. Who else is in?
When this cold civil war turns hot, the perverts who are trying to chickenhawk our children in the name of "tolerance uber alles" are going to be quite shocked by the enormity of the animos they have been building against themselves.
Unfortunately, it seems the answer is yes:
The answer to all of your questions is "no". That is why it is extremely important that material which is displayed conforms to general standards of decency in the first place. That is the real point of this piece. Once something is put on display, the horse has bolted, so to speak. If care is not taken with what is displayed, then incidents like the one described are inevitable.
As you are aware, there are certain categories of material which you will not find in any public library. At least not yet. I'm not referring only to sexually explicit material but also material which may be considered racist or violent or criminal. Were such material to be displayed, the reaction of certain individuals might be similar to the gentleman described in this piece.
Unfortunately, it seems that it is only through such actions that public officials get the message. So the gentleman was technically wrong in his action. But it has to be said that displays of innappropriate material invite this. And despite the Gay Kool Aid which we're all being force fed, surprisingly large numbers of people still consider this to be innappropriate material.
Exactly. No argument here. That's why libraries don't carry Hustler, or porno magazines. The Advocate is not a porno magazine. It's a magazine with a point of view that some may find offensive, but so is The American Spectator or Ms. The only question is whether the cover photo on this particular issue was so beyond the pale that it shouldn't have been displayed. Frankly, from how it was described (only bare chests, no actual kiss) I don't see it being any worse than things I've seen on the cover of People. So what's your point? Should this particular issue have been covered in brown paper, or held behind the desk? And, why? Why not do the same with an issue of People or Entertainment Weekly with the Britney/Madonna kiss? Or a magazine cover photo that shows any two people kissing, or almost kissing? Or do you think the library shouldn't subscribe to The Advocate at all because you don't agree with its editorial content or political viewpoint?
Why are you so exercised about the fact that this publication is in dispute? You have accepted the fact that a line must be drawn somewhere, as you seem to have no problem with the fact that Hustler is unavailable. The question then becomes what is and what is not to be displayed. Where should the line be drawn, is the question, isn't it?
In case it isn't clear to you, my position is that still, in 2003, despite the general moral malaise and the continually lowering bar, magazines which promote homosexuality fall on the wrong side of the line and should not be displayed.
Your original post said that destruction of library material is a unlawful. I agreed with that. But that was not your real beef was it? Your real point was that he had damaged this particular magazine, which in your opinion, is OK. I disagree.
And there we differ.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.