We have that in place already, the current application only asks if the child should have access to rated R movies. Internet is now a privilege that is given to all members, unless the parent asks us not to.

But we stopped asking whether they want their child to have internet access. And even if a parent wanted the internet access removed from a card, we no longer have any age restriction for the guest passes. Since this policy was last revised, we've also lost the parental controls that let them blacklist certain subject headings.

The ALA is opposed to any measures that restrict borrowing privileges based on age, and I'm inclined to agree. A parent asking the library not to allow their kid to check out R-rated movies is like asking McDonald's not to allow their kid to supersize their combo. Different parents have different rules for the media their children consume, and this is the only one that the library is choosing to enforce on their behalf.

From what I understand, Tennessee enacted that law in 1989 and now 16 year-olds illegally watch those movies before their release in theater on the internet.

I'd argue that Netflix is the societal norm now. The consumption of movies from Netflix, Amazon Prime, Google Play Movies & TV, YouTube, and Hulu are probably much larger than box offices. The idea of content restriction on movies is dated. The lib.'s idea to restrict access to materials from certain members was in line with the current private offerings from Blockbuster for restriction. Youth like movies and ease of access. So Blockbuster didn't work out with the competition. It doesn't make much sense for the lib. to use a failed business model to work on saturating a market other than the life-long book readers & it doesn't make sense for the libraries to institutionalize discrimination nor parental values. If we look at Barnes & Noble (still around), then we would find that they sell rated-r movies and don't have an age restriction for purchase (I called to check the two stores on May).

This restriction (2004) was about the same time as the restriction for only one episode of a season of a television show (2005 - AM 310.2). Normal has really changed from then.

Note: all of the big streaming services do have ways (to my knowledge) for parental restrictions, but none of them are forced onto parent's (some persons are parents under the age of 17) nor children and you'd expect inclusivity rather than exclusivity from a public institution.

State ID and Driver's licenses don't prove address. These can be any address that is verified by the postal system or can be overrode and can be any string of characters. Also, these postal approved addresses may be post office boxes. One can be compliant with the state by sending a change of address to the state by following the directions on the back of the identification, so it isn't necessary to purchase a new identification when an address changes.

I understand why we don't use this as proof of address, but I'd like that we do. We have more stringent proofs of address that aren't commonly carried. Since most persons don't want to pay to change the address on identification (and don't need to do that) and only senior citizens get theirs for free (a demographic that we probably have well covered) we might not want to change this. State Identification Cards/Licenses are by far the most likely "proof of address" that a member entering the lib. would be carrying. Getting ahold of a library card is more of an hurdle than most persons are willing to jump according to Orange Boy's purported statistic.

I don't know whether the M.L.S. wants the membership to change to the policy/procedure or the M.L.S. wants to change the policy/procedure to the membership. One has to change to obtain more cardholders, though. For the tie-in, "Integrity and Trust in Us and [_]by Us[_]". How much trust do we actually invest in our membership?