Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A group calling itself the Christian Civil Liberties Union (which barely seems to exist - no website or office that I can find) is demanding a huge amount of money from the West Bend, Wisconsin library because a book in the library offended them. Oh, and they also want to be allowed to burn the book. Seriously.
After four months of grappling with an evolving challenge to young-adult materials deemed sexually explicit by area residents Ginny and Jim Maziarka, library trustees voted 9-0 June 2 to maintain the young-adult collection as is "without removing, relocating, labeling, or otherwise restricting access" to any titles. However, board members were made cognizant that same evening that another material challenge waited in the wings: Milwaukee-area citizen Robert C. Braun of the Christian Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) distributed at the meeting copies of a claim for damages he and three other plaintiffs filed April 28 with the city; the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library's copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for "allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public."...For the immediate future, West Bend officials will be dealing with the CCLU's legal claim. Describing the YA novel by celebrated author Francesca Lia Block as "explicitly vulgar, racial, and anti-Christian," the complaint by Braun, Joseph Kogelmann, Rev. Cleveland Eden, and Robert Brough explains that "the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library," specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the "n" word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and "put one's life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike."
Kurt Vonnegut, call your office.
Politics
Comments
I'm cool with them burning the book, as long as it's sitting on a stack of KJV's and other religious fiction when the start the fire.
Posted by: democommie | June 21, 2009 9:37 AM
All right. Who let the wingnuts out of the loony bin?
Posted by: Mobius | June 21, 2009 9:38 AM
How is a book being 'racial' bad?
I could understand a problem if the book were 'racist' - but 'racial'??
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | June 21, 2009 9:42 AM
This book is part of the Weetzie Bat series....I remember reading a couple of them in high school. About as strange as you might expect with characters who have names like Weetzie Bat, but beautiful writing. Good stuff. I sure don't recall any "incitement to violence," and if the "elderly" plaintiffs feel that their "mental and emotional well-being" was damaged, I suggest that they not read books intended for teenagers.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 21, 2009 10:27 AM
I sure don't recall any "incitement to violence," and if the "elderly" plaintiffs feel that their "mental and emotional well-being" was damaged, I suggest that they not read books intended for teenagers.
Well said. To be perfectly safe in the future, they ought to stick to the richly-colored hardbacks designed for the under-5 set (particularly those published before 1965).
On an semi-related note, why have I never heard of the Weetzie Bat series? I'm a post-adolescent now, but Gretchen's description sounds intriguing.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 21, 2009 10:39 AM
Posted by: chris | June 21, 2009 11:11 AM
Apart from this being just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard (should I sue my Catholic High School for exposing me to the Bible, because it contains hate speech against Hittites and Moabites?), I'm annoyed that Christians think there's any legal basis for book burning (or that there's such a thing as "Christian Civil Liberties," as though they are different from the Civil Liberties the rest of us get).
Posted by: JStein | June 21, 2009 11:15 AM
Is this him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBrrW6IFOD0
Posted by: Owen | June 21, 2009 11:16 AM
Sure, there's a legal basis-- it just has to be your book. If you want to buy a copy of Baby Be-Bop and burn it, go right ahead! The library's copy, though.....not so much.
Also, it's not a matter of what Christians think-- it's a matter of what a few addled people in Wisconsin think. Big difference.
Posted by: Gretchen | June 21, 2009 11:29 AM
I'm annoyed that Christians think there's any legal basis for book burning (or that there's such a thing as "Christian Civil Liberties," as though they are different from the Civil Liberties the rest of us get).
Take heart. These people are the ones who have deluded themselves into thinking that our nation is a "Christian" one.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 21, 2009 11:31 AM
West Bend, that's suburban Milwaukee.
If the library board decides to fight it, they won't have much trouble. Gotta let these God-botherers have some fun.
Posted by: Lettuce | June 21, 2009 11:33 AM
I just found their schedule:
Book Burning at 11 Am
Witch Burning at 1130 {they don't want to waste that fire}
Stone Adultress at 1pm
Homo-Hunt at 3pm
Early Dinner at Chick Fillet--4pm
Other meetings also revolve around destroying Halloween for people who actually know how to have fun, and selling Amway, with lots of viewings of "Secrets of Masons," and other Matriciana films.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 21, 2009 11:51 AM
Sounds like a good book - they might have just incited me to read it
Posted by: Matthew | June 21, 2009 12:23 PM
I wonder if these precious old dears aren't related to the either the author or the publisher. As reading matter or firewood, it seems an excellent way to guarantee brisk sales in future. Or am I being too cynical? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 21, 2009 12:32 PM
I read the Weetzie Bat series a few years back. The only damage the books did me, is that they caused me to think that Los Angeles might be a magical and wonderful place to live.
But yeah, I can see how the books might be challenging for people who actually believe that their teen grandkids would be better off not knowing that there are possibilities, homosexuals and pink convertible cadillacs - and the wondrous possibility of love - in this world.
Posted by: Lee | June 21, 2009 12:43 PM
DJ, the series has been under attack somewhere or other since 'Weetzie Bat,' the first novel, was published.
Posted by: Lee | June 21, 2009 12:49 PM
Is Robert C. Braun my mommy? Please, Mommy, tell me what books you think I ought to read.
Posted by: mark | June 21, 2009 1:01 PM
Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit 451. I'm trying and failing to come up with a Vonnegut connection, although there probably is one. Something to do with Kilgore Trout?
Posted by: JimV | June 21, 2009 1:31 PM
The Vonnegut connection probably has to do with the fact that Slaughter House Five has been a frequently banned book. After one such banning in the 1970s Vonnegut wrote an open letter to the school board. I think it was on Long Island. The letter was reprinted in one of his nonfiction books, Palm Sunday, I think.
Posted by: Bill in NC | June 21, 2009 2:44 PM
And what possible reason could there be for not including the home address and phone numbers, or at least the e-mail, of the self-same Ginny and Jim Maziarka, of West Bend WI, who feel entitled to restrict what their fellow citizens read, and to burn books to enforce their entitlement???
They've forfeited their privacy here, it seems to me folks. I cannot see where polite discourse is called for either. I vote for obloquy, obscenity, and vile deprecation.
Just askin...
Posted by: Woody | June 21, 2009 2:57 PM
Well, Wisconsin does get cold in the winter.
Posted by: Toaster | June 21, 2009 3:29 PM
Woody, I have to very strongly disagree with you.
Certainly the plaintiffs have no right to privacy inside the courtroom, where the proceedings are public record. However, there is certainly no reason to cease recognizing their right to privacy in their own homes. It is proper to address and oppose their public stances in the forum it was put forward.
Yours is exactly the type of reasoning used by bigots and would-be theocrats to justify the harassment and intimidation of Establishment Clause and Civil Rights plaintiffs.
It's despicable in their case and it would be despicable in this one.
Posted by: DaveL | June 21, 2009 3:34 PM
Gretchen:
"if the "elderly" plaintiffs feel that their "mental and emotional well-being" was damaged, I suggest that they not read books intended for
teenagersmore mature audiences.Fixed it for you
Posted by: natural cynic | June 21, 2009 5:15 PM
Christian Civil Liberties? I know what they are getting at there.
For your typical fundy nut, it is essential for their sense of collective importance that they believe all rights and liberties to have their origin in christianity. Perhaps their most beloved quote is in the declaration of independance: "Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." Yes, gloat the fundies, this proves it - without Christianity there could be no rights or liberty for anyone!
They typicially follow this declation by attempting to deny that any non-Christian could comprehend these ideas. Dubious history will be quoted. Ancient civilisations will be erased (Athens, a democracy? Never heard of it!), and famous fighters for freedom throughout history will have Christianity retroactively added to their biographies, while the oppressive dicators will either have their religious side purged or be branded as not 'True Christians.'
Should the debater point out that he has no problems supporting personal freedom without resort to religion, the fundy will say that he is merely incapable of comprehending that he really does get these ideas from God - deep down inside himself, without realising it.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 21, 2009 5:31 PM
Break out the brown shirts and stubby moustaches....
Posted by: CHV | June 21, 2009 6:12 PM
YEA! DaveL who wrote:
Woody, I have to very strongly disagree with you.
Certainly the plaintiffs have no right to privacy inside the courtroom, where the proceedings are public record. However, there is certainly no reason to cease recognizing their right to privacy in their own homes. It is proper to address and oppose their public stances in the forum it was put forward.
Yours is exactly the type of reasoning used by bigots and would-be theocrats to justify the harassment and intimidation of Establishment Clause and Civil Rights plaintiffs.
It's despicable in their case and it would be despicable in this one.
_____________________________End Quote___________________
This is the kind of tactics that led to the murder of Dr Tiller in Whichita Kansas. You can't take the *moral high ground if you are waste deep in caca.
We might be horrified that these people want to burn a book--any book, and rightfully so. But it's no sin to have the thought or express it in this country or to try and enact it. The sin is if we complain after the fact, if we didn't attempt to countermand these people and beat them to the punch by creating a more positive precedent. Legal Precedents and Social Ones.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 21, 2009 7:21 PM
I'm annoyed that Christians think there's any legal basis for book burning (or that there's such a thing as "Christian Civil Liberties," as though they are different from the Civil Liberties the rest of us get).
"Christian civil liberties" means the liberty to force the rest of the world to never confront a fundie with anything that might make them the least bit uncomfortable.
Posted by: Joe Max | June 21, 2009 7:37 PM
...the complainants seek the right to publicly burn or destroy by another means the library's copy of Baby Be-Bop. The claim also demands $120,000 in compensatory damages ($30,000 per plaintiff) for being exposed to the book in a library display, and the resignation of West Bend Mayor Kristine Deiss for "allow[ing] this book to be viewed by the public."...
They were "exposed to the book in a library display." Well, there's the problem. All YA books emit omicron radiation from their jackets. Anyone over the age of 50 exposed for more than a brief period runs the risk of cellular metamorphosis. ;-)
These plaintiffs are seriously loopy. God forbid they should walk by the town's movie theater. (For all I know, maybe He does.)
It's hard for me to respond to their lawsuit seriously. Here's hoping the city comes up with a compromise that doesn't cost it much.
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 21, 2009 7:46 PM
Here's hoping the city comes up with a compromise
Compromise? With asshats who think they're entitled to tell me and mine what we can and can't read? Their real problem with this stuff is *gasp*, children might actually read these books.
They're suing because they think they know what's best for other people. And they title their cause as " christer civil liberties"!
"Christo-fascists" is more like it.
Posted by: kamaka | June 21, 2009 8:29 PM
Screw compromise. These people don't have a leg to stand on. Libraries exist to provide reading material of all sorts whether you like it or not.
I have a lot of trouble understanding the mentality at work here. I expect a library to include all sorts of books I don't like or don't agree with. I don't want my tax money to go to a library that simply reinforces my current beliefs. And even if I think that given book isn't worthwhile, I have no right to demand the book be removed because it has offended my sensibilities. That these people think they have some right to insist that the library not include books they disagree with is absurd. Are they going to next demand that copies of the Koran be removed? Maybe only allow certain Bible translations? Say just the KJV? Or even better, just burn the whole thing down. Same idea.
I find it sad that these people are old enough to be described as "eldery" but have not managed to ever pick up the basic values that this country stands for.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | June 21, 2009 9:13 PM
I agree. Making compromises with maniacs like these is the worst possible way to approach it.
It only encourages them, and similar fascists (which is how I define anyone who advocates book-burning) to try similar ploys at other public libraries.
Posted by: CHV | June 21, 2009 9:32 PM
I doubt the city or library will need to comprimise. Every adult who has a child with a library card has the option to inform the librarian either through a premade form or through a letter what materials a child is not allowed to check out. What books are off limits.
I do not have to raise their kids. And that being said, that means I am not responsible for their child's normal curiosity about any number of given subjects. That is the Christian Supremacist's responsibility. Just like my children do not have to answer to them, when they are given free run of the entire library from day one.
These people do not have the right to force their views, fears or prejudices on the rest of us.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | June 21, 2009 10:22 PM
A little more book reading and a little less book burning might widen someone's horizons. We can't have that.
Posted by: Jim | June 21, 2009 10:54 PM
CCLU, they're like the ACLU but only for xtians their rights.
A compromise is a great idea, eg: If the CCLU piss off right now and nobody ever hears from them again, they wont be fined for every cent they have for wasting the time of an already overburdened legal system.
Posted by: tincture | June 21, 2009 11:01 PM
Delightfully, we've got some judges in the Milwaukee area that have been slapping down some stiff fines for frivolous lawsuits that are clearly intended only to interfere with public discourse. I've been following this story eagerly.
Posted by: lytefoot | June 22, 2009 12:21 AM
Huckleberry Finn uses the "n" word, too. Are they going to burn that as well? Twain was pretty anti-Christian himself.
Posted by: Heidi | June 22, 2009 12:39 AM
Just look at Fahrenheit 451's message and I hope they get something out of it. When Twain used the "n" word in Huckleberry Finn, he was just being Twain himself. God, do not burn it.
Posted by: Daniel Scott | June 22, 2009 1:57 AM
Question:
At what point, precisely, does making a comparison with the Nazis (for example, the Nazi book-burning rallies) NOT invoke Godwin's Law?
Posted by: Zmidponk | June 22, 2009 8:51 AM
Christians need to do a better job defending their trademark.
Posted by: Shygetz | June 22, 2009 9:05 AM
"Christian Civil Liberties" is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by: GPPlascencia | June 22, 2009 10:15 AM
For "compromise" I had in mind something like this: The mayor holds a press conference to apologize for the plaintiffs' discomfort, promises to look into the matter; they agree to drop the lawsuit; the city pays them each a couple of hundred dollars. End of story.
Note that nowhere in this is is a commitment made to remove or hide any of the books in the library. If they persist and go to court they should — and certainly will — get slapped down.
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 22, 2009 10:44 AM
It's just awful that the library made them read those offensive books! We must stop the library from forcing others to read offensive books! Oh wait, the library only had those books available but never forced these elderly people to start or continue reading anything offensive. If they were so offended by stick figures in sexual positions that they actually felt the need to add censor bars, then why did they continue reading that book and others like it? I mean, I assume that people their age know how to close a book. I'm not kidding about the stick-figure censor bars. Here is a link:
http://www.librarypatrons.org/book.asp?ID=24
But if we're gonna start burning books, let's start with the one where a father offers his two daughters to be gang raped by a whole town, and then later gets drunks and impregnates them both.
Here's a link to their main blog:
http://wissup.blogspot.com/
Posted by: catgirl | June 22, 2009 10:46 AM
Chris Winter:
No compromise is required, nor desirable. Giving in to these idiots only enourages them. It's only a guess, but I'm willing to bet that these four morons are being funded by one of the major KKKristian orgs, such as FotF.
Posted by: democommie | June 22, 2009 11:32 AM
DaveL,
Actions have consequences, consequences have actions. The plaintiffs have chosen to enter the public arena. Woody's right: These people no longer have a right to privacy. They want to tell me what I can read; I would suggest they find instructions on changing phone numbers and e-mail addresses.
Posted by: mediajackal | June 22, 2009 11:46 AM
"I doubt the city or library will need to comprimise. Every adult who has a child with a library card has the option to inform the librarian either through a premade form or through a letter what materials a child is not allowed to check out. What books are off limits."
I think the CCLU's objection isn't that children might be able to read the book - it's that children are allowed in the same room as the book. To people used to thinking in terms of magic and miracles, it makes perfect sense for a book to put off an 'ambient evil' that could pervert anyone who is exposed to it's aura.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | June 22, 2009 12:06 PM
I am reminded of a favorite author who, when presented with angry fundies (in Oklahoma) who did not approve of the gay characters in her books, offered them a bulk discount if they wanted to burn her books. Clearly this is how every author/publisher should approach people who want to burn their books.
Posted by: JustaTech | June 22, 2009 1:17 PM
Too bad Vonnegut's dead. So it goes.
Posted by: Lurky | June 23, 2009 2:35 PM
I don't think you people see just how dangerous this Baby Be-Bop book really is! It's about a teenager. Who is gay. And, being liberal propaganda, I assume that this gayhomo isn't even ashamed of it, and he doesn't even turn to the Lord to cure himself of his gaymansex addiction.
It's so dangerous that all the plaintiffs were rendered temporarily gay just seeing the cover! One of them turned so gay that he almost felt an emotion!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 24, 2009 8:10 AM