The library system where I work is under attack again from a self-righteous mob of censors claiming moral outrage as justification for their campaign to remove books from the library. Libraries oppose censorship, so we highlight banned and challenged books every September to celebrate this principle. It seems these authoritarian control freaks perceived such displays as year-round endorsement of the challenged content, and started a campaign to purge the community of smut.
To be honest, I have not read the specific books they want removed in this round of activism, but I doubt very much they have, either. Excerpts of alleged pornographic content are presented without context or even page references. Even if these accusations are 100% correct, these books are not in our children's section. Some are apparently in Young Adult, but these people are demanding bans, not a cataloguing update. Can't they see the blatant hypocrisy of condemning Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter for censoring dissent and then demanding power to decide what others may access?
Image created in Canva
This campaign bears the hallmarks of internet hysteria spread by e-mail and Facebook, not serious criticism. We are not pushing smut to kids as these detractors accuse. In the end, it is the responsibility of the borrower to choose what to borrow. Parents, consider teaching your kids discernment instead of obedience to arbitrary rules and authoritarian prohibition. We all want to protect kids, but you need to give them tools to make wise choices instead of prohibiting everyone else from choosing at all.
Librarians are always willing to offer advice and suggestions to guide our patrons, but we cannot in good conscience censor anything based on either our own opinions or those of any subset of our community. The library is not an echo chamber. Freedom to read means freedom to access a wide spectrum of ideas. It does not matter whether these ideas are true, false, or disputed; whether presented as fiction or not; whether the reader might agree or not. The more contentious the topic, the more important it is to provide access to a range of opinions. Our district policy is (supposedly) to promote freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry while supporting a diverse population with diverse interests.
Libraries curate their collections based on community interests and analysis of the overall collection. New books are always being added, particularly if there is a new subject in public discourse. If trends suggest community interest in a given genre or topic, the collection tends to be enhanced to serve that interest. Even if interest wanes, most strive to maintain enough material to cover it for reference purposes. This is a core library function. What people read for fun or for research is not our business. We do not police the reader.
Turning the library collection into a political tug-of-war between ideologies does not promote morality or intellectual honesty. Instead, it opens the door to anyone using the power of the State to crush dissent. This is antithetical to the idea of liberty.
“When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked in this fashion; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, whose mind is free. No, not the rack nor the atomic bomb, not anything. You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.”
― Robert A Heinlein, If This Goes On—
EDIT: This assault from conservative Karens coincides with another battle against progressive censorship previously recounted here and here, now with updated images so everything looks a bit more cohesive!
No, they can't grasp that their completely righteous judgments aren't the only correct way to see things, for the most part.
It's good that some, like you, can.
Thanks!
It's weird how this is a cycle. Every generation has their "book burning" phase(s) for various reasons. Seems to pop up about every 20 years or so but seems to be worse now with the instant brain washing available in our pockets.
Conservatives 20 years ago: "Harry Potter is bad because of witchcraft!"
Progressives today: "Harry Potter is bad because J. K. Rowling disagreed with extreme transsexual activists!"
This book banning nonsense is outrageous. As you say, it will be informed by facebook posts and based on leading excerpts without context. It is how people always do it.
It is how control is instigated when you ban access to information for spurious reasons. Grrr
How the knowledge could be banned ? if they can't get them from the library, they will get it from some where else. I think it's again the Freedom. You should speak against this act @jacobtothe
This anonymous post and my non-anonymous local statements are both already happening.
By the way, there's no need to tag me when replying to my post. HIVE automatically notified me of the reply already. This isn't like algorithm-driven Facebook with its selective notifications.
Okay bro I'll be careful next time.
I'm not trying to tear you apart over it, LOL! There is a place for tagging people in posts or comments. It's just usually not necessary.
Got it bro !
First I will say that I am 100% against banning books. That means I am against laws that would restrict publishing, selling, reading, or buying books of any kind. Having said that, libraries are taxpayer funded entities. As such, taxpayers can and should have a voice in how the library is run and what books they carry. So whenever a public library (or whoever is speaking for them) starts complaining about book bans (which really isn't that case...books are not being banned) it sounds to me like they are saying "give us your money and shut up" which I find a bit offensive. It's not about policing the reader, it's about policing tax dollars.
I have no idea what books are involved in this particular instance so I don't really have an opinion on the books themselves. It's just that I support a taxpayer having a voice in how taxpayer funded entities are run whether they agree with me or not. I fully recognize that those with the loudest voices are not necessarily representative of the majority nor are they necessarily particularly well informed.
Now if laws come along banning private libraries (not that there are really many of those), book stores, publishers, authors, etc. from writing, publishing or distributing books then we can talk about "bans". But just because taxpayers don't want certain books in a library they are paying for, it isn't "banning" anything. It's a bit like saying that if I decide not to carry a particular book in my book store then I am "banning" it.
I think that everybody (except pedophiles) would agree that child porn shouldn't be in libraries. But beyond that, where does the library draw the line? Should library curators be the sole arbiters or should the community have a say? I agree that a library shouldn't be used as a political tool but I don't think you can say that the community that pays for the library shouldn't have a say in how the library is run.
This is all even more important when it comes to school libraries. Parents should certainly have a say in what books are appropriate for their children. Having said that, some of the laws that have come out at the state level have been downright stupid. But...
"Parents, consider teaching your kids discernment instead of obedience to arbitrary rules and authoritarian prohibition."
The point is that kids may not have the maturity to "discern" about certain topics and that they shouldn't necessarily be exposed to certain things until the reach a certain age or maturity level. I agree that at a public library this is the responsibility of the parents as a library will certainly have things that are "adult" in nature in some form or another as they are not just for kids (school libraries are a different case). And yes, kids should be taught but that's hardly something that happens instantaneously the moment they learn to read. It's a process that lasts at least until they are out on their own.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that when it comes to public libraries, if a majority of the community (as opposed to a handful of Karens) doesn't like how it is run or what books it is carrying then it should be changed. After all, isn't it the community that is paying for it? And that this does not equate to "banning" or to a violation of anyone's first amendment rights nor is otherwise a "freedom" issue.
One of the chief arguments against restricting content is because libraries are funded by extortion. We need to maintain a collection that served the entire community robbed by the state, not just specific interest groups.
Additionally, there is a fundamental disconnect between what we are taught about the nature of government and the reality. The myth of a democratic republic with a state subservient to the people is a nice story, but not how power works. There is no inherent rational or moral authority in majorities or minorities. The State exists to perpetuate itself and enrich the political class, not to protect our rights and liberties.
As for taxes, government has never behaved as if tax revenue includes a responsibility toward the taxpayer. You have authority over how you choose to spend your money. You have no authority over how an extortionist spends what is extorted from you. Even libraries and fire departments, probably the two least-bad tax-funded systems people encounter, are built on this foundation. This is also why the government can get away with spending $160 per man, woman, and child on Ukraine, to say nothing of the "Just-Us" system, the War on Drugs, and innumerable other true injustices. No, the library has a few books we don't like, so that requires public outrage! And some of these clowns want librarians fined or imprisoned through that broken system because they think they can use it to impose their ideas.
On the practical front, when people get outraged over the library containing a book, the Streisand effect kicks in. Shelf space is always at a premium. We can't afford to keep books people don't read any more than a market-based store can afford to keep items on the shelf if no one is buying them. We may be disconnected from the market, but we have metrics for what stays. Instead of the natural cycle of unpopular fiction getting weeded out, these protests shine a spotlight on these books and guarantee at least a temporary resurgence in interest. I have never seen one of the challenged books circulate locally until people started pitching a fit. Now it is getting borrowed, which resets the clock on possible removal from the system due to a lack of interest. The protests are counterproductive when it comes to our collection policy.
Late additional thought: Take the 50 Shades of Grey novels as an example. Some people enjoyed them when they dropped, but I doubt anyone would cite them as great literature, and interest has tapered off. I'm not even sure my branch still has a copy on the shelf. No one has borrowed it in ages, so if it isn't already gone, it will probably be weeded soon. I'm sure one or two libraries in the district will keep copies on hand, but not every library will waste space even on the slimmer paperback editions. Trash doesn't last unless people pitch a fit. If these Karens were to (probably rightly) condemn trash literature like that, it won't get weeded. We may even need to buy new copies if demand spikes.
If we have no authority over what is extorted from us then the whole library debate is moot anyway as it is funded by money that is extorted from us.
I absolutely agree with almost everything you said above. It's just that I object to citizens expressing how they want their tax money spent (or not spent) being called "banning" anything or violating anyone's freedoms. No matter how dumb or ill-informed they might be. Like you said, you can do what you want with your own money and I don't care what books you buy. If you don't want nosy ass citizens worrying about what you read, don't make them buy your books.
I don't think it's necessarily a moot point. To the extent government extortion revenue gets diverted back to projects which actually serve the public, we must be good stewards of that money. And since our budget is entirely disconnected from the taxed individuals thanks to the fungible nature of money, we need to strive to ensure the entire community is served to the best of our abilities.
Of course the idea solution might look like a membership subscription answerable to the members directly, or a charitable trust fund functioning as a neutral service to all. Some libraries in the US are funded by these methods instead of property taxes. Homeschool associations and churches often set up libraries for their members informally, too. But while this is possible, the real hurdle is persuading people that it is the proper solution. In the mean time, getting mad about library books is a waste of effort when far greater injustices exist.