When you ignore any facts that do not fit your desired outcome, and cherry-pick those that do, it’s called intellectual dishonesty. Russ Neal’s latest opinion piece is a prime example of that.
Let’s start with the first paragraph in which Mr. Neal says that I implied that, “children have a right to access books impacting their moral and religious upbringing independent of their parents.” Simply because I made the point that the First Amendment does not differentiate by age.
He utterly ignores several paragraphs later where I also state that I agree that not all books are suitable for all children and that parents are best equipped to make that decision. I was simply making the point that he, or the unqualified “book review commission”, should not be making that choice for MY children – that’s up to me. The overwhelming success of the ballot measure to repeal the commission proves that the vast majority of Huntington Beach residents agree with me.
Next, he claims that the The American Library Association’s (ALA) “Library Bill of Rights”, which states that “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age …” and that “All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.”, should be interpreted as meaning any child can check out any book without restriction. But do you notice the ellipsis there in his quote? The three little dots that tell you something has been left out. Well, here’s the whole line:
Did you catch that?
From local politics to the people and policies shaping our daily lives—it’s all in The Morning Report. Don’t miss out on this free daily email.
V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
Do you see anything there that says any person can check out any book, regardless of their age? Of course not. Because that’s not what it says. It says you can’t be denied the ability to use the library because of your age. That’s all.
Then Mr. Neal suggests that, in the recent court case the City of Huntington Beach lost to the ACLU and several students, parents were disenfranchised. Here are his exact words:
California’s Freedom to Read Act, AB 1825 (2023-2024) uses similar language, and Judge Lindsey Martinez recently cited this law in ruling that Huntington Beach could not require parental involvement in children’s access to sexual books. She said parents’ rights were not infringed, because if they didn’t like it, they could just not use the library. Of course, they still must pay for the library as taxpayers.
Non-partisan. No advertisers. No paywalls. No hidden agendas.
Together, we can inform and empower Orange County.
But guess what? That’s not what the court ruling said. Here’s a summary of that court decision, along with a quote from the judge:
“The court also rejected Huntington Beach’s argument that the Freedom to Read Act infringed on parental rights. The city claimed the state law unconstitutionally interfered with parents’ ability to control their children’s access to certain books. But the court found that the law applies only to public officials and does not prevent parents from exercising control over their children’s library use. Parents, the court noted, remain free to stop their children from using the library or reading particular books.“
“The plain language of the FTRA shows it applies to public officials, not parents,” Martínez wrote. “Parents thus remain free to restrict what materials their children access.”
Mr. Neal then asserts that, since no library contains all the books ever printed, then all libraries must be engaged in book banning. This argument is much akin to the Sophists arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Clearly, Mr. Neal doesn’t comprehend the difference between collection management and book banning. Collection management is attempting to have relevant books across a broad range of topics that are representative of that topic, whereas banning is deliberately ensuring that some specific topic or point of view is not represented. That’s a pretty big difference and not one that anyone being intellectually honest would conflate.
Finally, Mr. Neal claims it’s all a big plot to “drive a wedge between parents and children”. Let’s get one thing straight – the library requires parents to accompany their young children in the library. There’s a sign to that effect near the entrance and children under 13 cannot get a library card without their parents’ approval. I have repeatedly said that parents are in the best position to decide what books are appropriate for their child. You are supposed to go to the library with your minor children and to browse the books with them.
It’s called parenting, and if you’re not willing to do that, perhaps you shouldn’t have children.
David Rynerson is a retired technology systems engineer with a background in economics. He is an avid reader and patron of the Huntington Beach library system. He lives in Huntington Beach, CA.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider:
This is what accountability looks like.
For 16 years, Voice of OC has been Orange County’s trusted source for fearless, non-partisan coverage.
We’ve tracked the big shakeups, the quiet deals, and the decisions that hit you where it counts— your wallet, your home, your community.
From corruption investigations to housing shortages, from environmental challenges to the local economy, we follow the facts so you can follow what’s really happening in your backyard.
No ads. No paywalls. No spin. Just the truth.
And none of it happens without you.
If you believe Orange County deserves this kind of coverage, join us by making a tax-deductible contribution today.
Related