Library rules go beyond "Shhhhh"

[resqgeek]

Smelly Readers Banned From Calif. Library

New County Law in California Allows Authorities to Kick Out Smelly Guests From Libraries

The Associated Press
Mar. 7, 2005 - A new county law aims to keep readers from reeking. Libraries in San Luis Obispo County have had their own rules banning offensive body odor since 1994, but the policy became law after the Board of Supervisors last month adopted an ordinance that lets authorities kick out malodorous guests.

Visitors to 14 libraries and a bookmobile also could be asked to leave for fighting, eating, drinking, sleeping, playing games, and printing or viewing illegal materials on library computers.

"The point is to make the library a comfortable, safe place for everyone to use," said Moe McGee, assistant director of the San Luis Obispo City-County Library.

A strict code of conduct, officials argue, is needed to ensure one patron's right to use a public library doesn't infringe on the rights of another.

Yet the law can raise tough questions for librarians, said Irene Macias, Santa Barbara's library services manager.

"What is bad odor?" Macias asked. "A woman who wears a strong perfume? A person who had a garlicky meal?"

I understand the goal here, but is there anyone who doesn't see the lawyers drooling over the court challenge for this one? Maybe I should start a pool on how long it will take for the courts to overturn this...

Comments

[antof9.livejournal.com]

HA! I've sat near a "smelly" in the library before. It's not pleasant. But the questions Macias raises in the article are going to be the problem. What's offensive to me might not be to you and vice versa. Yuck. You wouldn't think something like this needs legislating. . .

[resqgeek]

The real reason I expect this to be challenged in court (and the reason I suspect it will be struck down in the process) is that I seriously doubt that the legislation clearly defines the boundaries of what is to be considered offensive. Without clearly defined guidelines, this law is probably written WAY too broadly, and as a result is open to discriminatory abuse.

I have to say that I commend the effort to make public libraries a more pleasant place, but I'm not sure all the implications of this legislation were fully considered.

[antof9.livejournal.com]

I think you're right. And that's something lawyers everywhere can be proud of :)

*rolls eyes*

[avanta7.livejournal.com]

So it's not enough that the real estate prices in my hometown are so high I can never afford to return, now they can toss me out of the library if they don't like my perfume?

The underlying motivation for this (according to friends I still have there) is to prevent transients, vagrants and other homeless folks from patronizing the library and offending the better-washed and better-housed (and therefore "better" classed) clientele.

But of course, no one says that publicly.

Re: *rolls eyes*

[resqgeek]

The underlying motivation for this (according to friends I still have there) is to prevent transients, vagrants and other homeless folks from patronizing the library and offending the better-washed and better-housed (and therefore "better" classed) clientele.

Which is just the type of discrimination I suspected was behind this, and the reason that I think that the legislation is fatally flawed.

But of course, no one says that publicly.

If only they were that honest....