Bookstores and Responsibility

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I also wouldn't expect them to freely advertise which books they censor either.

I'm pretty sure they advertise that they don't censor books. I wouldn't expect them to censor anyway.

[Ramo]

Ben, I think I found your avatar for November-December.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I expect art museums to be flakey.

I expect you to be a moron.

You don't consider Playboy to be pornography?

Playboy is the only thing in the photography section?

You are telling me you know the store better then I do? That takes a special brand of arrogance.

When it comes to you, I expect I know most things better than you do. Including, perhaps, your own bookstore. Maybe it doesn't, but I don't think you've really checked it out. Have you?

If it doesn't, than it doesn't, but it'd be a very weird bookstore in that case. Doesn't sell Playboy in the magazine rack either?

Well, and the fact I consider you to be a serial liar probably makes me not believe you either.

It's not a chain I'm afraid. Do you believe all quality bookstores are chains?

Chains are the only bookstores to have websites? Not all quality bookstores are chains. My favorite isn't, the Boulder Bookstore... but it does have a website:

http://boulderbookstore.booksense.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp

Sure, I believe that. Where have I said they shouldn't be permitted to include whatever books they want to include.

But if they do, then they have to put up signs all over saying we sell X, Y, Z, infinity that may offend someone.

Yessir. How is that a violation of their right to carry whatever books they want?

Because you are saying that if they have their own list of books they don't want to carry then they have to put up a sign saying they have books that may offend (and what the offense may potentially be).

So you are basically forcing them to carry every book, or be subject to more onerous burdens. Yep, that's a first amendment violation in the US right there.

Do they advertise they sell porn? Yes or no. Answer the question please.

Nope. And they shouldn't have to advertise it.

Ahh, so we get to the crux of the matter. I guess Barnes and Nobles would rather have their ass sued when the porn gets pulled off the shop by the kiddos.

How long has B&N and Borders been in business? If the suit had ANY, ANY chance of succeeding it would have already happened.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm pretty sure they advertise that they don't censor books. I wouldn't expect them to censor anyway.

Oops, I had a feeling I spoke too soon on this. They do censor. Shame on them.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ramo:

One of the most profound works of art on the Sistene Chapel?

Sign me up.

[Ben Kenobi]

When it comes to you, I expect I know most things better than you do. Including, perhaps, your own bookstore.

Well I wouldn't say I know the layout of the Atlanta Barnes and Nobles. Just because you'd have a bit, especially after I've already challenged the existence of the bookstore.

Maybe it doesn't, but I don't think you've really checked it out. Have you?

Why do you think I'd bring up Gundy's if I didn't know the store well? The store has been there as long as I've been here, at least 50 years.

If it doesn't, than it doesn't, but it'd be a very weird bookstore in that case. Doesn't sell Playboy in the magazine rack either?

No sir.

Well, and the fact I consider you to be a serial liar probably makes me not believe you either.

I think you are an idiot to claim to know my local bookstore better then I do, but then that's just me. Please continue Imran.

What's the lake that I go to every summer? Since you know everything better then I do.

Chains are the only bookstores to have websites? Not all quality bookstores are chains. My favorite isn't, the Boulder Bookstore... but it does have a website:

http://boulderbookstore.booksense.c.../store/IndexJsp

Cool. There are a few bookstores up here. Actually my favourite isn't Gundy's but Books on Fourth, just because they have chess games in the afternoons. They don't have Playboy either because it totally harshes their mellow. They are those weird folks who see Playboy as exploitive of women and contrary to feminist ideals.

But if they do, then they have to put up signs all over saying we sell X, Y, Z, infinity that may offend someone.

How is that preventing them from selling? It's a pain in the ass to label cans, but it's there to inform the consumer.

Because you are saying that if they have their own list of books they don't want to carry then they have to put up a sign saying they have books that may offend (and what the offense may potentially be).

So you are basically forcing them to carry every book, or be subject to more onerous burdens. Yep, that's a first amendment violation in the US right there.

Is it a first amendment violation to ban under 18s from entering adult stores?

Nope. And they shouldn't have to advertise it.

So playboy is photography then. I'll rephrase it. Is Playboy explicit?

How long has B&N and Borders been in business? If the suit had ANY, ANY chance of succeeding it would have already happened.

How long has B&N carried explicit material? I'd be willing to bet that policy changed in the last 5 years.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ramo:

One of the most profound works of art on the Sistene Chapel?

Sign me up.

You like gay porn?

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

How is that preventing them from selling? It's a pain in the ass to label cans, but it's there to inform the consumer.

That's off. You have to pick up and look at the can. The grocery doesn't have to advertise "we sell fatty cheese". I think if you look close enough at the book at hand, you do find at least a vague reference to "gay sex".

The store can either carry everything and say nothing (common knowledge) or say "we carry everything" (how true and useless). You proposed they can say (help me out, I see law as tedious)

(ok, now, general or specific? I'll do general, specific is even more a rampant obfuscating mess.)

"literature includes instances and collections of photography"

"we carry sexual literature" (cool I like that)
"we carry gay literature" (whoa! I hate when that happens -- but ok, I'll cope. Better not forget to protect the converse though)
"we carry straight literature" (well that's ambiguous, better change to hetero- and homo- )
"we carry religious material" (God damn it! Oh well. that's what makes America great.)

So go find a book. If I'm lucky, it will be two 18-year old priests getting it on. If not, maybe it will be that woman and a horse. Eek!

"we carry animal literature." (Glad we got that taken care of. I'll never go to the Humane Society again, it's common knowledge they have "animal literature")

Great. How to word the infinite. It's a favorite subject (i.e., futile exercise) of mine, and it isn't easy. So I do think it is too much to hold a bookstore accountable for.

But I concede, this is what modern society attempts to do.

Whatever. I was trying to endorse Iram's point about violating the stores rights and putting undue burden upon them, but I have failed with boredom. As of yet, whether to defend or oppose the issue is futile. Me? If the father seeks blame , I blame the father. He clearly doesn't accept the responsibility that *he wants himself* to accept! He wants to protect the child from what *he construes* as harmful in the world? Well the best he could hope for is that he was present. And he was. So his fault. He's trying to push his responsibility onto society.

I don't believe in blame though. I'll end without preaching.

[McCrea]

Actually, it now seems simple.

Either ban children from all libraries and book stores, or don't (leaving bookstores _free_ to carry any literature they want.) Both are workable, efficient solutions. Anything in between will have room for dispute, and is inefficient.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a pain in the ass to label cans, but it's there to inform the consumer.

Can the can company get out of the labeling if it does something that some busybody wants (like, say, make every flavor that is requested)?

Since an organic grocery store won't accept Coca-Cola products (usually they won't), should they be required to put on their wall "We don't carry Coca-Cola". It's just to inform the customer after all. Should we force food to say "Non-Organic" on it? Informing the customer, after all.

Is it a first amendment violation to ban under 18s from entering adult stores?

Nope, but it would be to say adult stores can let in under 18 year olds if they carry every single adult material material and don't engage in any self censorship.

Or lets say Boy Scouts have to let in people of all sexual orientation or else they have to have a big sticker saying "He hate Homos" on all publications. Violation or no?

So playboy is photography then. I'll rephrase it. Is Playboy explicit?

Yes and I still don't think that means they should be required to advertise it.

How long has B&N carried explicit material? I'd be willing to bet that policy changed in the last 5 years.

Ever since I can remember. Sorry, Ben, ain't going to win that one. I can remember bookstores in the mall carrying Playboy for as long as I can remember.

[q=McCrea]Either ban children from all libraries and book stores[/q]

Ah, right... forgot libraries. You can find the same books in libraries, but I don't recall any warning on a library that explicit material may be found inside.

Maybe because it's common knowledge!!

But Ben wants to live in a nanny state.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's off. You have to pick up and look at the can. The grocery doesn't have to advertise "we sell fatty cheese". I think if you look close enough at the book at hand, you do find at least a vague reference to "gay sex".

What would be wrong with a sign saying,

"we carry explicit books?"

Short, simple to the point. That's all I'm saying here.

Whatever. I was trying to endorse Iram's point about violating the stores rights and putting undue burden upon them,

1. Stores don't have rights. Business owners do.
2. How is placing a sign on entry saying "we carry explicit books", an undue burden on business owners.?
3. How does the sign in anyway restrict or regulate the books that they can carry?

The sign does none of these three things, and it serves the purpose of informing the customer.

He wants to protect the child from what *he construes* as harmful in the world?

Yes, and rather then serving as a stumbling block, the store should assist him in making an informed choice. It seems simple to me. Put up a sign. Then the decision is left up to the customer whether to enter or not.

How is he pushing his responsibility on society? If a store sells explicit material, they should inform their customers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Can the can company get out of the labeling if it does something that some busybody wants (like, say, make every flavor that is requested)?

It would be a public service then and not a business, and the situation would be very different.

Since an organic grocery store won't accept Coca-Cola products (usually they won't), should they be required to put on their wall "We don't carry Coca-Cola".

Should they be forced to use the label "Organic" and should the use of the label also be regulated? Yes, and yes. Both of these things already happen now, so I don't see why you find it offensive.

Nope, but it would be to say adult stores can let in under 18 year olds if they carry every single adult material material and don't engage in any self censorship.

So your complaint fails then. First amendment rights are not the issue here. The store does not have the right to sell whatever it wants to whomever it wants.

Secondly, putting a tag up saying we sell explicit books is not a restriction of their freedom of speech rights.

Yes and I still don't think that means they should be required to advertise it.

Why not? I think they should.

You seem to believe it's common knowledge that Barnes and Nobles sells explicit materials. Truth in advertising should prompt them to advertise this fact. If they choose not to advertise it, then no, it's not common knowledge.

Victoria's secret sells lingerie and advertises their lingerie sales. Why shouldn't Barnes and Nobles do the same for the explicit materials they have chosen to stock?

Are they ashamed?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Should they be forced to use the label "Organic"

No one is forced to use the label "Organic", Ben. If they want to, they have to follow requirements, mostly due to fraud reasons.

Bookstore ain't saying "Boobies Free" or anything.

So your complaint fails then. First amendment rights are not the issue here. The store does not have the right to sell whatever it wants to whomever it wants.

They are if you are basically forcing an establishment to give up their freedom of association rights in order to be exempt from a burden.

And what argument can be made that they shouldn't be subject to the "Explicit Materials Inside" sticker if they stop having a self-censor list?

Why not? I think they should.

And I think they shouldn't. Regardless of your sheltered existence, it is common knowledge that B&N sells Playboys, has explicit materials in the photography section and in the relationships section.

If they choose not to advertise it, then no, it's not common knowledge.

Are they ashamed?

B&N does not advertise that they have a religious section. Does that mean it isn't common knowledge that they sell religious books? Does that mean they are ashamed of selling religious books?

You are becoming more and more daft in this thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What would be wrong with a sign saying,

"we carry explicit books?"

Short, simple to the point. That's all I'm saying here.

To quote McCrae

"literature includes instances and collections of photography"

"we carry sexual literature" (cool I like that)
"we carry gay literature" (whoa! I hate when that happens -- but ok, I'll cope. Better not forget to protect the converse though)
"we carry straight literature" (well that's ambiguous, better change to hetero- and homo- )
"we carry religious material" (God damn it! Oh well. that's what makes America great.)

Where does it end?

[Ben Kenobi]

No one is forced to use the label "Organic", Ben. If they want to, they have to follow requirements, mostly due to fraud reasons.

Well sure, there are very strict regulations about who can or cannot use the label organic, again because they believe the customer ought to be informed via advertising that the word organic means what it ought.

They are if you are basically forcing an establishment to give up their freedom of association rights in order to be exempt from a burden.

How are they losing their association rights? If they don't want to advertise that they have explicit materials, then they don't have to carry them. If they carry them, then they should advertise that they do. They can choose to carry them or not.

It comes back to undue burden. How is putting a sign up saying "we carry explicit materials" an undue burden?

And what argument can be made that they shouldn't be subject to the "Explicit Materials Inside" sticker if they stop having a self-censor list?

Then they would be a library.

And I think they shouldn't. Regardless of your sheltered existence, it is common knowledge that B&N sells Playboys, has explicit materials in the photography section and in the relationships section.

Do they advertise this? Anywhere? Yes or no?

B&N does not advertise that they have a religious section. Does that mean it isn't common knowledge that they sell religious books?

Yes, I wouldn't expect them to have a religion section unless they advertised as such.