Parents getting answers from their officials
Parents confront Associate Library Director over the obscene library books for children
What she said in the 45-minute meeting will shock you.
She had no problem with those books and defended their inclusion.
Completely disconnected from reality: These library people clearly believe that obscenity and pornography “help” children.
See video of the meeting below. [Caution: Graphic content]
May 9, 2023
Part 1 of a series: Parents usually can only testify before a group of public officials at open meetings – and they rarely get answers. In this series you will see what officials say when parents come and question them individually – and they can’t hide.
On April 5, 2023, seven MassResistance parents came unannounced to the offices of the Marshall Public Library in Pocatello, Idaho. They wanted answers about the pornographic books for children in the library.
They spoke with the Associate Library Director, Trina Bonman. (The Library Director was out of town.) The meeting, which the parents openly videoed, lasted about 45 minutes. They read to her the disgusting, pornographic passages and showed her the pictures from books available for children.
The way Bonman defended the books – and the systems for bringing them in and keeping them there – were shocking and eye-opening. She had clearly mastered the pro-LGBT American Library Association’s talking points for dealing with anyone who complains. But the parents were ready for that. They asked the tough questions and demanded answers.
Nevertheless, it was obvious that the library supported making homosexual and heterosexual pornography – as well as “transgender” ideology – available to children in the community. There also seems to be a depraved interest in exposing children and teenagers to homosexual sex acts.
You can watch the meeting here. It certainly is an education! Note: Some of the language (from the books) is graphic and disturbing:
Here are some highlights of the meeting:
The meeting started right out with questions about the obscene books.
One of the parents asked about the book “Gender Queer.” Bonman said it had received a formal challenge, and it had been decided to keep that book on the shelves.
The parents then held up the book and described some passages from it:
You can see one boy sucking the dick of another boy. And another boy is sucking a strap-on penis of a girl. Drawings of two men masturbating. A discussion between a boy and his sister about putting her finger into her vagina and then licking it – “So you’ve never tasted yourself? Of course I have.”
Another passage: “I can’t wait to have your cock in my mouth. I’m going to give you the blow job of your life. Then I want you inside me.”
The letter regarding that, signed by Bonman, said the library’s committee determined that “the book had literary merit, and that it contained a viewpoint that is under-represented.”
(It’s crystal clear that the “challenge” process is completely rigged against the parents. The library brings in the books, and also decides whether to keep them.)
The parents asked for the list of people on the committee that made this decision. Bonman refused to tell them. “It’s an administrative detail that we’re not making public. It’s part of our internal procedures,” she said.
Another parent read to Bonman from a different book, “Flamer”:
I recognize that this doesn’t sound very sexy. But this is the reality of butt sex. With a little forethought I will make your sex sexier. This is a dude-dude pairing. It can get tricky. At the end of the day, if you want to have anal sex, one of you is going to have to go top. The one who puts his willie in and the other bottom, the one who gets the willie up his bum, gay men seem to spend a lot of time talking about this. It’s actually not a massive deal, as most guys will happily switch roles depending on their mood. Although there are guys who prefer to be strictly top or bottom, is the top the man and the bottom the woman?
Bonman answered that this book hasn’t been challenged, so there’s been no determination about it. (In other words, until there’s a formal “challenge” they simply don’t care.)
A parent asked if there had ever been a book that had been successfully challenged. Yes, said Bonman. It was an old children’s book with “antiquated” (i.e., politically incorrect) pictures and descriptions.
Opinion versus “professional standards”
The parents asked Bonman what she personally thinks of these books. “Are you OK with this being there for kids to read? Would you have your own child read them?”
She answered sternly, “My personal opinion doesn’t matter. This is a professional situation. We make professional judgments.” (That is a stock ALA talking point used to avoid having to discuss it.)
She continued, “We don’t pick books based on our personal opinions. We use professional judgment and professional standards to purchase books that are meant for the entire community.”
The parents pressed her on that. What exactly are these “professional standards”? Where are they written down? Can we see them?
Bonman stumbled and finally admitted, ““They’re not written out. They’re not formal.” She then attempted to connect it to the “collection policy” but it didn’t really fit.
A parent answered, “If you’ve got standards, then you need to have them where everyone can read them if they choose to. Because otherwise it’s strictly opinion.”
Is this pornography?
When the parents accused the library of stocking pornography, Bonman stated, “The library does not have pornography. I haven’t seen pornographic images in this building. These books are not legally pornography.”
So the parents asked her if she knew the legal definition of pornography. After all, that is the crux of the matter here. She paused and admitted that she didn’t really know it. And apparently, no one at the library knows the legal definition.
Instead, she told the parents, “Our city legal department has taken a look at these materials and they are not considered legally obscene.” However, she didn’t say which materials those were. (And according to other information we received, the city legal department has not looked at any materials from the library. We will check that out!)
One of the mothers informed Bonman that Idaho state law is quite clear about obscene materials that are harmful to minors. She then read part of the statute out loud:
"Harmful to minors" includes in its meaning one or both of the following:
(a) The quality of any material or of any performance or of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse, when it:
(1) appeals to the prurient interest of minors as judged by the average person, applying contemporary community standards; …
Bonman simply looked at her and didn’t comment.
Does our library have materials harmful to children?
This simple topic revealed everything a parent needs to know about the mindset of the people running their library.
A few parents asked, “Do you think that the library has books that are harmful to children?” Bonman answered, “I think ‘harmful to children’ is a really hard term to describe.”
They brought up community standards. She replied, “How do you define community standards? Whose standards are you talking about?”
One parent made the (reasonable) accusation, “You’re pushing an agenda to have children do something that isn’t natural.” Bonman answered, “We don’t push any agenda. We don’t push any materials on to minors. We have things available on our shelves. But we don’t promote them to anyone. “
Bonman added this classic ALA talking point:
We have people who have gone to library school here and they teach collection development. We want a balanced collection for all ages, sensibilities, and all segments of the community. We want to have a balanced collection. Not everything in the library is going to be for every person who comes into the library.
This is basically a well-crafted excuse for bringing in pornography. What possible “segments of the community” want this destructive material? Perverts? Pedophiles?
And she added this equally offensive ALA talking point: “It’s up to the parents to decide what their children read. They should use their own family values and family standards.” In other words, it’s an excuse for having a library that’s not safe for children to go there unsupervised.
A parent asked, “Why not just have wholesome books, not controversial books?” Her answer: “We can’t make judgments of books based on some people’s opinions.”
Normal people are sickened when they see or read the material presented. But the library staffers not only are not repulsed in any way, they see it as somehow good for both children and adults. It’s mind-boggling.
Exposure to pornography and homosexual imagery can harm children in horrible ways for the rest of their lives. This has been extensively documented. Among other things, they can become sexually dysfunctional, sexual predators, and develop pornography addictions.
Parents should not have to confront librarians to stop this. These materials should not be there in the first place. It was once universally understood that people who expose children to obscenity should not be allowed to be employed in schools or libraries. In fact, if it were not for the narrow exemption for schools and libraries in Idaho state law, these officials would likely be in jail.
The late Dr. Judith Reisman, who wrote several books on Kinsey’s work and his effect on society, concluded that these people actually despise children.
This is just a part of what the pornography industry and the related LGBT movement are doing to America. As we know, these books are being aggressively promoted by LGBT-related publishers and the pro-LGBT American Library Association, and defended by groups like the ACLU.
Sadly, there’s more to come in this series of reports!
Please help us continue to do our uncompromising work!
Our successes depend on people like you.
Your support will make the difference!