OUR OPINION
Vladimir Nabokov went on trial Thursday, facing being sentenced to
the Marion County library book jail for his 50-year-old novel "Lolita"
- the disturbing trip into the twisted mind of a middle-aged man
obsessed with the sexual conquest of his 12-year-old stepdaughter.
The proceedings promised high drama: one of the last century's best known literary works - once banned in the U.S. - embroiled in a potential First Amendment test of the County Commission's new power, inaugurated on Thursday, as adjudicator of public library materials.
Yet when it ended, Nabokov and his novel were exonerated in an atmosphere as tense as having a parking ticket dismissed.
"Lolita" survived by a narrow 3-2 vote and remains, appropriately, in the adult fiction section; politicians who stirred up this mess, which originated during the Clinton administration, get to claim victory; and, ironically, the one person who has repeatedly encouraged the board to steer clear of the constitutional pitfalls of tampering with established library materials - a move that could lead to hefty taxpayer-paid legal bills - is now saddled with the new role of library czar.
Rest assured, this divisive issue did not end on Thursday. This is a war of attrition. Expect more challenges and plenty of grandstanding about protecting children and erecting limits on constitutionally guaranteed speech.
But if the future show trials for books come off like this, with the county attorney's office actually providing the thumbs up or down, we can only ask: Why should the public continue to endure such a colossal waste of time and taxpayer resources?
Terry Blaes, former chairwoman of the disbanded Library Advisory Board, sought to make a statement about the commission's self-ordained job of book judges. She picked "Lolita" because it's a recognized masterful work that delves headlong into the frightful hot-button topic of adult perverts stalking children. But Blaes' effort to test the waters sank when, as Commissioner Andy Kesselring pegged it near the end of the session, she really didn't believe in her cause. In other words, she didn't disagree with Library Director Julie Sieg's decision to keep "Lolita" where it is.
If we were conspiracy theorists, we might wonder about another petitioner, Eddie MacCausland, also a former library board member and one of the first and most outspoken conservative critics on some library materials.
MacCausland, too, appealed Sieg's decision - but unlike Blaes, who only asked the board to determine whether "Lolita" was "unsuitable" for minors, MacCausland requested to have it carted off to the library's restricted area.
But MacCausland, who would have brought the passion to his cause that Blaes appeared to lack, was a no-show - critical, because MacCausland's protests could have forced commissioners into a tough spot on a ticklish First Amendment question. Instead, they got off the hook.
MacCausland submitted a letter to the board saying he had to work. Hmm. The date and time were settled at least a month ago.
Then, there's the vote. Kesselring, board Chairman Jim Payton and Commissioner Charlie Stone voted to uphold Sieg's findings. Although no one had to publicly justify their vote, this trio has shown little appetite for this battle of our community's alleged culture war. They know the county has more pressing issues to deal with.
Commissioners Randy Harris and Stan McClain dissented. Harris, in the name of "protecting" children, which apparently he feels he can do better than their parents, has vigorously campaigned against the three or four books questioned over the years. McClain made cleaning up the library a core part of his 2004 election campaign. They can now promote their "losing" vote to their shared political base as their effort to stand up for morality, as they see it. Expect campaign ads.
In the end, the board handed off to County Attorney Gordon Johnston to research whether action can be taken under state laws that primarily concern the display or selling of pornography to minors in retail stores, not novels in public libraries.
Johnston over time has repeatedly advised the board that they were on shaky ground. Now, based on Thursday's hearing, Johnston will be called on to weigh every challenged book for legal sufficiency for retention - meaning his decisions, not those of librarians, will likely shape library policy.
Nabokov and "Lolita" didn't move from this place; but shouldn't we?
The proceedings promised high drama: one of the last century's best known literary works - once banned in the U.S. - embroiled in a potential First Amendment test of the County Commission's new power, inaugurated on Thursday, as adjudicator of public library materials.
Yet when it ended, Nabokov and his novel were exonerated in an atmosphere as tense as having a parking ticket dismissed.
"Lolita" survived by a narrow 3-2 vote and remains, appropriately, in the adult fiction section; politicians who stirred up this mess, which originated during the Clinton administration, get to claim victory; and, ironically, the one person who has repeatedly encouraged the board to steer clear of the constitutional pitfalls of tampering with established library materials - a move that could lead to hefty taxpayer-paid legal bills - is now saddled with the new role of library czar.
Rest assured, this divisive issue did not end on Thursday. This is a war of attrition. Expect more challenges and plenty of grandstanding about protecting children and erecting limits on constitutionally guaranteed speech.
But if the future show trials for books come off like this, with the county attorney's office actually providing the thumbs up or down, we can only ask: Why should the public continue to endure such a colossal waste of time and taxpayer resources?
Terry Blaes, former chairwoman of the disbanded Library Advisory Board, sought to make a statement about the commission's self-ordained job of book judges. She picked "Lolita" because it's a recognized masterful work that delves headlong into the frightful hot-button topic of adult perverts stalking children. But Blaes' effort to test the waters sank when, as Commissioner Andy Kesselring pegged it near the end of the session, she really didn't believe in her cause. In other words, she didn't disagree with Library Director Julie Sieg's decision to keep "Lolita" where it is.
If we were conspiracy theorists, we might wonder about another petitioner, Eddie MacCausland, also a former library board member and one of the first and most outspoken conservative critics on some library materials.
MacCausland, too, appealed Sieg's decision - but unlike Blaes, who only asked the board to determine whether "Lolita" was "unsuitable" for minors, MacCausland requested to have it carted off to the library's restricted area.
But MacCausland, who would have brought the passion to his cause that Blaes appeared to lack, was a no-show - critical, because MacCausland's protests could have forced commissioners into a tough spot on a ticklish First Amendment question. Instead, they got off the hook.
MacCausland submitted a letter to the board saying he had to work. Hmm. The date and time were settled at least a month ago.
Then, there's the vote. Kesselring, board Chairman Jim Payton and Commissioner Charlie Stone voted to uphold Sieg's findings. Although no one had to publicly justify their vote, this trio has shown little appetite for this battle of our community's alleged culture war. They know the county has more pressing issues to deal with.
Commissioners Randy Harris and Stan McClain dissented. Harris, in the name of "protecting" children, which apparently he feels he can do better than their parents, has vigorously campaigned against the three or four books questioned over the years. McClain made cleaning up the library a core part of his 2004 election campaign. They can now promote their "losing" vote to their shared political base as their effort to stand up for morality, as they see it. Expect campaign ads.
In the end, the board handed off to County Attorney Gordon Johnston to research whether action can be taken under state laws that primarily concern the display or selling of pornography to minors in retail stores, not novels in public libraries.
Johnston over time has repeatedly advised the board that they were on shaky ground. Now, based on Thursday's hearing, Johnston will be called on to weigh every challenged book for legal sufficiency for retention - meaning his decisions, not those of librarians, will likely shape library policy.
Nabokov and "Lolita" didn't move from this place; but shouldn't we?