Bookstores and Responsibility

[Ben Kenobi]

Where does it end?

So your best argument is a slippery slope?

Is there much outcry for people offended when they walk into a bookstore with their kids and see religious books?

Is there much outcry for people offended when they walk into a bookstore with their kids and see explicit books?

I don't know. Are atheists really that frightened of religion?

Most businesses that do carry explicit materials are already regulated. I don't see why along with that regulation they should be force to say that they do so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

[SlowwHand]

Ben, you're correct. Why put "Hustler" next to "Bambi".
Using Ramo's reference as an argument pro or con borders on a mental defiency.

[Ramo]

Mental deficiency.

[snoopy369]

I suggest that a simple test be used:

"Is there an amendment in our Constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of expression?"

Yes: tell the mayor to shut the **** up
No: Ben Kenobi fo President!

--

On a serious note, though, this comes up regularly in the book industry, often at the customer level. As a former bookstore manager, it's actually pretty interesting to me to see what others think What we did (Borders) was simply to locate the Sex/Erotica section in a location that was relatively disparate from the Kids section (not necessarily different floors, but separate enough that kids would not generally accidentally wander into it from the Kids section); and as part of our normal loss prevention/recovery sweeps pay attention to the books on the floor and who was reading where. More than once we spotted people reading erotica/nude photograhy/etc. in the Kids sections, and we would simply ask them to relocate to another area; and certainly we found plenty of materials in the section (and most other sections). Kids had the most convenient seating area, generally, so I don't know that the folks reading these materials were necessarily predatory in nature, but it was always a concern of course.

One time we did have a parent bring us a book they found while their kids were playing, and we simply apologized and let her know that it's something we try to prevent but cannot always be directly on top of; she was reasonable, as I think most people are.

We certainly also had people come up to us and ask why we carried such materials etc.; we of course directed them to corporate PA, as she should have in the above B&N case. I strongly doubt that the person interviewed was a disinterested observer. She certainly would have lost her job if she was identifiable, and rightly so (disobeying corporate policies as to contact with the media or other public figures).

We do, I might add, mark sections appropriately when they contain adult content; in addition to the obvious (which isn't explicitly marked because it is aptly titled "Sex/Erotica" and thus needs no clarification I think), the Men's magazine section has an explicit label, as well as the Manga section (two sections you might have a bit more likelihood of not being aware of). It's certainly not necessary to have a sign out front, as that would require a lot of signs to detail everything potentially objectionable sold ("OMG you sell meat cookbooks, how dare you!" etc.); books aren't directly dangerous, and thus there's no direct harm from accidentally coming into contact with them. (Unless you get a paper cut. **** those are annoying.)

[Fake Boris]

What's with the obsession of anything sexual, Ben? Why would sex desserve a legally mandatory separate treatment?

Sounds like you're trying to insert religious ideology into the law.

[rah]

Since I'd expect there to be art books in a book store, I would expect the same warning in a book store that I'd see in an art museum. None.

As long as there isn't anything questionable in the childrens section, or obviously not right next to it, I have no problems.

And with thousands and thoushands of books, short of having ratings on them, I can't hold bookstores for knowing about every possible thing someone MIGHT find offensive in every single book.

Besides real religious types would probably find offense with almost every book in the romance section. Or even in the plain fiction section. Characters are having sex in over 50% of books in the book store I would guess.

It would seem silly that you would need a warning of sexual content for the romance section.

In summary, anyone walking into a book store who needs to be warned that there might me objectional content of some type, is just plain being silly.

The father should have been paying closer attention and should be the subject of abuse here, not the store.
As Snoopy points out, I'm sure the stores does not make it a point to have material like that lying around in plain view.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, I wouldn't expect them to have a religion section unless they advertised as such.

They do. Wrong again bud.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by ricketyclik
Who are you?

Tell 'im, Lori.

[Ben Kenobi]

What's with the obsession of anything sexual, Ben? Why would sex desserve a legally mandatory separate treatment?

I'm not really advocating that perspective. All I'm saying is that if atheists really are that offended by religion, that the store should advertise that they carry religious books too.

Sounds like you're trying to insert religious ideology into the law.

Which religion? Islam? Judaism? Christianity?

Is it only people who go to church every sunday that want to protect their kids from seeing explicit material?

[Ben Kenobi]

As long as there isn't anything questionable in the childrens section, or obviously not right next to it, I have no problems.

How would you define questionable Rah? I'm curious. You seem to think all is fine so long as they have it in a different section, correct?

If it's ok so long as they keep them apart, why is it wrong if they were to put a sign up in the front?

In summary, anyone walking into a book store who needs to be warned that there might me objectional content of some type, is just plain being silly.

The father should have been paying closer attention and should be the subject of abuse here, not the store.
As Snoopy points out, I'm sure the stores does not make it a point to have material like that lying around in plain view.

Isn't the purpose of a bookstore in carrying those books to have them in plain view and easily accessable to everyone.

Here's what I can't understand. There are obvious problems with having explicit books in a bookstore as snoopy has laid out for us. Adults reading explicit books have to be monitored so that they don't bring them into the children's section.

That to me seems so completely silly. Why is it bad if the books are in close proximity, but good if the books are on the opposite room?

Isn't it more onerous to separate the sections then to put a sign up front saying they carry explicit books?

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Isn't it more onerous to separate the sections then to put a sign up front saying they carry explicit books?

No. The bookstores are big enough that something has to be far away from the kids section, making that something the adult books is no harder/easier than making it any other subject. Unless you mean physically separate the sections, like with a wall. That would be more onerous than a sign.
It's still stupid either way. There is no way anyone with any sense whatsoever can think that every book in a general-interest book store will agree with their sensibilities. There has to be something in that store that you will find offensive. So putting up a sign that says "This store contains something some people find offensive" is redundant. Trying to section off everything that someone wouldn't like to see is also impossible, almost every section would need to have its own wall.

[Ben Kenobi]

No. The bookstores are big enough that something has to be far away from the kids section, making that something the adult books is no harder/easier than making it any other subject. Unless you mean physically separate the sections, like with a wall. That would be more onerous than a sign.

I'm talking about the act of trying to keep the two sections separate from each other. I think it's stupid honestly.

I think any store which caters to kids doesn't really need to sell explicit books. Two radically different market niches. This is why they are getting conflicts anyways, so really one or the other should go.

There has to be something in that store that you will find offensive.

I see your point, but I don't see how that complaint applies to this sign. Saying that this store sells explicit books is both informative, and less work then trying to keep the sections divided. If the store were to warn people that they have explicit books inside, they could organise the store as they see fit.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. Stores don't have rights. Business owners do.

Hi Ben.

Please don't get semantical on me. I'll just say "rights don't exist" and we know we'll get no where. I gave up the first time because I knew I was being fuzzy.

Ok, I had an analogy today. I hope to type this well. Perhaps it will be a future essay, where I can afford to give each word the time of consideration it deserves. (I'm saying, bear with me).

So, New York has the new Internet blocking legislation with Verizon, Time Warner, and Sprint, that is being reworked for California. (I should be fair to them: they wouldn't call it Internet blocking, they call it Child Pornography blocking.) But that's not quite this subject, because that is illegal material. The relevant point that upset me here is that the list of offending sites is "secret". Likely no trial, no review.

So, I thought about real [not Internet] cases. If this case at hand went to court, it would be open to the public. For explicit material, they would temporarily clear the public, I believe. None the less, there is review by a jury of peers and the public.

Here's is my "big idea". Would you take your child to that trial?

Regarding Internet blocking & maintaining the innocence of children, I have always held the idea that it's the parents responsibility to protect their children. I concede that standing over your child's shoulder isn't fun, nor guaranteed success. What would be successful would be to ban them from the Internet. At least while you are at home. (<-- point of contention, but I'm trying to stay on topic.) I think we can liken "stay off the Internet" to "don't talk to strangers" and "don't go in my closet". "I said 'don't'". "I mean it!"

If you think the trial may be dangerous, don't take you child. If you think the Internet may be dangerous, keep your child off it. If you think books may be dangerous, keep your child away. If you think guns are dangerous, don't take your child to a firing range. If you think sharks are dangerous, don't swim in the ocean! That's where they live, people. Books live in bookstores.

Regarding the law, which I know nothing about, isn't "ignorance is no excuse" still commonly held? I don't get this "I am ignorant (that they carried such material) so I am a victim!"


___The End___ (the rest is supplemental)


[Let me C&P a little crap I sent yesterday.]
I don't believe in innocence. The more you know, the more you can protect yourself. That is the role of a parent, to prepare a child for their life, whether a future time may be good or bad. If you only prepare them for the good, I fear they will suffer from a lot of bad. But, society has it's rules that say we must shield our children from harmful knowledge. There is no cure for the power of society.

[Live! -- not Memorex]
Something was said about "atheists who are offended by religious material". I think religious people are the ones most likely to be offended by other religions. There is no shortage of atheists in America, yet they haven't made a peep at all, in general. Stereotypically, they are rather "accommodating" bunch.

Peace out

[Ben Kenobi]

So, New York has the new Internet blocking legislation with Verizon, Time Warner, and Sprint, that is being reworked for California. (I should be fair to them: they wouldn't call it Internet blocking, they call it Child Pornography blocking.) But that's not quite this subject, because that is illegal material. The relevant point that upset me here is that the list of offending sites is "secret". Likely no trial, no review.

I live in Canada, which is a totalitarian state. I would not be surprised to see websites with contrary views (ie conservative), fall under the block, and the best thing is that those who don't peruse them have no clue that things have changed.

Here's is my "big idea". Would you take your child to that trial?

No, I think we have a moral obligation to our children to raise them appropriately. My counter to that is that I believe parents ought to be able to allow their children to attend such a showing.

Regarding Internet blocking & maintaining the innocence of children, I have always held the idea that it's the parents responsibility to protect their children.

I agree, which is why we should give parents the information that they need in order to make appropriate decisions. Movies are required to list whether they are R rated. Why are bookstores treated differently? If they have R content, shouldn't they warn parents of that?

I concede that standing over your child's shoulder isn't fun, nor guaranteed success. What would be successful would be to ban them from the Internet. At least while you are at home. (<-- point of contention, but I'm trying to stay on topic.) I think we can liken "stay off the Internet" to "don't talk to strangers" and "don't go in my closet". "I said 'don't'". "I mean it!"

My own experience is that children should first off not be exposed to anything you don't think is appropriate for them in your own home. That's the first step. Parents should also expand privileges at a certain rate so that when they are adults they are able to deal with much of the stuff that is out there. I'm not a parent, I would probably suck at the job totally, but I know some very excellent ones who see this as one of their most important jobs.

If you think the trial may be dangerous, don't take you child. If you think the Internet may be dangerous, keep your child off it. If you think books may be dangerous. keep your child away. If you think guns are dangerous, dont take you child to a firing range. If you think sharks are dangerous, don't swim in the ocean! That's where they live, people. Books live in bookstores.

Are all books inherently dangerous? We specifically list some which are considered beneficial. A better example would be like mushrooms. Some are poisonous, others are rather tasty. Education would be teaching a child which are safe and which are not. The question I have is if there is a simple step which the store can do to help parents, they should do so.

Regarding the law, which I know nothing about, isn't "ignorance is no excuse" still commonly held? I don't get this "I am ignorant (that they carried such material) so I am a victim!"

I'm a big believer in truth in advertising. I think a business should be proud of what they sell, and shouldn't have qualms about advertising any of their product line. Healthy businesses function that way.

I don't believe in innocence.

I think innocence is precious, and delicate. We should let kids be kids, and not have to be adults.

The more you know, the more you can protect yourself.

I agree parents should be the antithesis of innocent in order to protect their kids.

That is the role of a parent, to prepare a child for their life, whether a future time may be good or bad. If you only prepare them for the good, I fear they will suffer from a lot of bad. But, society has it's rules that say we must shield our children from harmful knowledge. There is no cure for the power of society.

Neither is it a cure to expose a child to all knowledge.

Something was said about "atheists who are offended by religious material". I think religious people are the ones most likely to be offended by other religions. There is no shortage of atheists in America, yet they haven't made a peep at all, in general.

Huh? I see the hostility everywhere. Try crossing yourself in public.

Stereotypically, they are rather "accommodating" bunch.

I don't see that at all. We see all the frothing at the mouth here, and I hardly doubt you would call Poly a haven for believers.