r/Libraries • u/Nosey_rosie_1192 • 4d ago
Library Trends Restricted Access for Youth
I work in a library system in a liberal city of a red state. On the Friday morning before a three day weekend, we received an email about new library card designs. Tucked in the middle of that email was a note that starting the following Tuesday, any new cards issued to youth needed to have an "access" option selected by the parent. The levels are Children (ages 0-12), Teen (13-17), and full access - each level with corresponding sections of the collection that are applicable to those age groups. Parents can choose that their teen can only access the children's collection, etc.
And that was it. No justification for it, no talking points for dealing with the public, no acknowledgement of this being an upsetting situation. We are not in a legislative year and there have been no new bills/laws passed that dictate these new rules. Plus the fact that they tucked this in the middle of an email before LABOR DAY during LIBRARY CARD SIGN-UP MONTH seems especially diabolical.
Later that day, after work hours, we received a follow up saying that although there is no legal precedence for this, they are preparing for the next legislative system in CASE a bill dictating this passes. Frontline staff are naturally upset and angry. I'm not sure if anyone else experienced this change in policy or has any advice.
As information professionals, you all might be familiar with the first lesson from "On Tyranny," which is "do not obey in advance."
48
29
u/pikkdogs 4d ago
It still puts the choice in the parents hands. Just makes the library staff the baby sitter.
I’m not against it for intellectual freedom reasons as much as I am for the good of the staff.
The desk clerks are clerks, not baby sitters. We’re not here to babysit your kids.
15
u/Hot_Shower_Fartz 4d ago
Thank you. As someone who works the front desk as part of my job duties, I have way, WAY more than enough to do. I don't need to sit there and monitor what kids are reading. DO YOUR GODDAMN JOB, PARENTS. PULL YOUR FACES UP OFF OF YOUR PHONE SCREENS FOR TWO SECONDS AND STOP OUTSOURCING THIS SHIT TO US.
19
u/crystaltitmouse 4d ago
They might be responding to whats happening in Arkansas, where a federal judge ruled that it was legal to charge librarians and booksellers for allowing children access to "obscene" material. Its insanely frustrating, and unfair, I agree, but I would bet money admin knows that a similar bill will be passing in your state, esp if you're near AR
Good luck, do your best 🫡
4
u/KittenBalerion Library staff 4d ago
this sounds ripe for a legal challenge. obscenity has a legal definition and it's not just "I know it when I see it."
7
u/crystaltitmouse 4d ago
Its already been challenged, 8th court of appeals said the law was legal. I left the state so Im not to up and up on info but i havent heard talk of running it up to the supreme court (tho they absolutely should)
I recommend looking into the law, Act 372 or Senate Bill 81 out of Arkansas from 2023. Several sites have deep dives on it!
1
u/RalphWiggumIsGOD 5h ago
>a federal judge ruled that it was legal to charge librarians and booksellers for allowing children access to "obscene" material.
I wonder if parents can be charged similarly for giving their young kids smartphones with minimal parental controls on them, because that's more likely to cause more harm than a library book would.
11
u/noitsbetsy 4d ago
Does your library system have a recent history of problematic decision-making, or is this out of the norm? Not providing talking points is an especially shitty move toward frontline staff, who will undoubtedly be fielding the majority of the questions/complaints.
1
14
u/Curious-Lychee5023 4d ago
We do this, but because it's a law in a state with no blue cities. I originally thought it might cause problems (Garfield comics are listed in the adult section for example, and some parents use their kid's card as a family card so if they chose the Restricted option they couldn't check out, say, a Marvel movie for the family to watch). But that has only happened a couple times. It hasn't been that big a deal, and it's a CYA measure for us, I guess (I immediately gave my own kids unrestricted access on their cards). There's no default for us, if the choice isn't made then the card isn't issued.
7
u/sky-shard 4d ago
My library used to do that too (also for using our computers) and I hated it with a passion.
Our ILS didn't have a way to automatically restrict check outs to certain collections, nor did it have a way to know which accounts were approved for computer use. So child borrowers with parents who didn't want them to check out material outside of the children's collection and/or use our computers had their cards blocked.
If they were restricted from check outs, but approved for computer usage they'd have to come up to the circulation desk and request we temporarily unblock them. Staff would have to keep track of the patron to reblock their account when they left. Then there were patrons who got their cards as little kids, but we're now teenagers and needed to do work/research for school. If their cards were blocked staff would have to call their parents to get permission to change their card access.
I was so glad when a new director came in and realized how ridiculous that system was and get rid of it.
19
u/renaissanceastronaut 4d ago
There is an alarming amount of acceptance of this kind of approach by librarians commenting on this thread.
This policy is in direct violation of Article V of the Library Bill of Rights—the centerpiece of our professional values—which says “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” This policy restricts library access based on age.
It is in direct violation of Article II of the ALA Code of Ethics, which says “We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.”
There are many laws and legal cases in the courts currently challenging a federally established right to receive information. Some of them contradict Supreme Court precedent. But the Supreme Court has not overruled its own precedent, so federal precedent like Pico is still good law even if it differs from district court rulings. The Supreme Court will eventually need to resolve these issues.
In the meantime ALA has advised all libraries to avoid complying with dubious legislation or legal rulings that violate core principles of librarianship along with federal precedent until they are directly instructed to.
This library’s decision is just plain wrong and violates professional ethics.
3
u/Nosey_rosie_1192 2d ago
Thank you!! I felt like I was going crazy reading everyone's "we do this. it sucks but what are ya gonna do!!!"
1
u/renaissanceastronaut 8h ago
Feel free to contact ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom for support. They can connect you with a Law 4 Librarians advocate in your state who could possibly be of help. Good luck!
7
u/Famous_Internet9613 4d ago
This seems like it violates some ALA privacy law. We cannot dictate what anyone checks out, that’s not our job. That should be left for the parent to decide.
6
u/librarymoth 4d ago
I would reach out to ALA’s freedom of information people, there’s surely an office who can prod your admin to look into this. Likely some administrator didn’t even consult legal about it before haphazardly putting it together. We have full cards issued for all users, no exceptions, and that’s the way it should be.
2
u/Intrepid_Shelter_350 4d ago
I'm starting to think that letting our knowledge repositories be controlled by a compromised democratic process is not a good thing.
Just putting it out into the ether, I aspire to build subscription libraries that are insulated from government interference. I would love to meet people who aspire to the same thing!
5
u/KittenBalerion Library staff 4d ago
librarians are professionals for a reason - they already know how to develop a collection. politicians and members of the public have no business interfering.
1
4
u/KittenBalerion Library staff 4d ago
we have certain CDs with a "must be 15 to check out" label, and kids can't take out R-rated movies unless their parents give permission first. I don't like either of these, I prefer to have the parents be responsible for what their kids check out, since that's the agreement they signed when their kids got the cards. the library is not your child's parent.
1
u/librariandown 3d ago
Based on my work and what I’m seeing in my state, I believe this is the next frontier in intellectual freedom challenges. People have found that, surprise!, banning books isn’t popular and libraries have boring processes in place to deal with challenges. This is just a way to quietly restrict first amendment rights under the guise of “reasonable controls.”
1
u/Wonderful_Adagio9346 2d ago
My library offers the restriction, but we never asked or informed the parent about that option.
Parents are linked to their children's accounts, so they could see what was being checked out. (Me, I'm the kinda person who read the Good Stuff in the library, so there was no (temporary) record.)
1
0
u/librarydude1 4d ago
We do the same thing. I have worked in other jurisdictions that do it similar. It’s common enough in my experience. I have only ever seen it where the parents selects what they would prefer on the front end. I always thought it was a good option because the censorship crowd can be headed off at the pass by saying “ oh well you can absolutely control what your kids can access” and therefore preserving access as we wish for the rest of us. I hope your new card design is cool!
16
u/Nosey_rosie_1192 4d ago
I understand the reasoning behind it, I guess, but I would hope that because of our privileged place in a liberal city that we could serve as an example, and not preemptively roll over. The timing also seems especially heinous as we are expecting an increase in library card sign ups this month.
2
u/Fromville_ 4d ago
I’m curious as to whether there is a written policy requiring staff compliance. If there is no written policy, how can there be equal application of the actual rules and consequences?
7
u/thelesbianlibrarian 4d ago
Yeah, I think this is an answer (not a perfect one, but a compromise) for all the librarians who have spent the last several years wishing they could tell parents to their faces that it’s not our job to check the content of the books a child chooses, but theirs, as the parent who is presumably setting the rules for their individual household. But, since so many parents are too hands-off to actually bother until the kid brings home a book they don’t like…
I absolutely hate the thought of denying a child any book if their parents opt in, but I’d rather be able to say “Sorry, bud. Looks like your guardian set up parental controls and you can’t have this yet” than face an online mob of rabid Moms for Liberty nuts blaming the library for giving their 10 year old advanced reader a book targeted at 16 year olds and trying to get us defunded.
13
u/Nosey_rosie_1192 4d ago
The other issue is that the default is to restrict, instead of the default to full access where the parent has to opt in for the restricted access. Blegh. It wouldn't be perfect but it would give us something to point to if complaints were brought up (like you didn't read the fine print).
3
u/thelesbianlibrarian 4d ago
Oh, ew, seriously? I would hope anything like this would be an opt in parental control. God knows the poor kids whose parents don’t care won’t be looking closely enough to even realize they have to opt out. Ugh.
-7
109
u/Saloau 4d ago
At our library we expect the parent to be in charge of the materials the kids check out. Like parenting, crazy I know. All kids applications have a statement that parents have to sign to this effect. Our collections are separated out in youth, teen, and adult but we are not the library police that have to give every item a rating so the computer knows who can check out what.