Hustler Magazine Challenge, Week 2

[Mark Wilden]

> But this isn't a case of opportunity cost, since the library isn't being
> offered the opportunity to purchase anything but "Hustler".

As in most jobs, I suppose, there is usually more work than time. Which is
why spending _any_ time considering whether to offer trash like Hustler is
lost opportunity cost.

> Also, your argument acknowledges that librarians consider pornography
less
> appropriate than other things, nearly admiting that there is an
> appropriateness issue with "Hustler" in libraries.

I don't think anyone's ever denied that, although, as I've said,
"usefulness" is probably a more accurate adjective than "appropriateness."
There is no doubt in anyone's mind, I'm sure, that Hustler is less useful
than most magazines.

> There is also the issue of "representititve samples": libraries try to
draw
> a  sample of genres they would not normally collect, and would do so if
> offered for free, as in this case.

The library where I worked has a hard enough time just putting together a
reasonable collection of useful material, much less bothering to make sure
that they have something about everything.

Let me ask you, David: If some (possibly misguided) librarian actually took
your organization up on its offer, would it honestly go through with it and
spend its money making porn accessible to minors? I know this is
hypothetical, but a "yes" or "no" would suffice.

I don't really see how it could, frankly, since then it would be furthering
the very things it's against. And if it couldn't, how are we to take this
offer seriously?