Celebrate freedom. Buy your own damned banned book

And when special interest groups sway the decision for funding literature at the local level, that is also censorship.

Government (or more specifically, these special interest groups you so nebulously speak of) is responsible to provide you with everything you may want to read?

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I want to find a copy of the January 1952 edition of Popular Mechanics at my local library. I can't. Is that censorship?

Take a deep breath and think twice before answering.

Actually, you can. If inter-library loan isn't available, you can go to a different library with a microfiche collection. I've looked at many an old newspaper or magazine that way. Now, if somebody were to try and prevent my access to that information because it defied God, I'd have a problem with that.

I would too James, for that indeed would be censorship. No government should dictate who can access what, nor should any level of government be primarily responsible for providing Douglas with access to the 1952 edition of Popular Mechanics he desires. Capitalism and the free market do a much more efficient job than any government could every dream of doing. (To see proof, click
here.)

You can easily can find all of these so called "Banned Books" at many libraries, and from a variety of other sources, so one has to wonder why anyone would say that they are banned, particularly an association of Librarians. They of all people should know better!

And they do... The truth of the matter is that "Banned Book Week" is a boldface annual attempt to mislead the public through the use of inflammatory buzzwords and misinformation. It is perpetrated by an organization that has a stated goal of promoting a liberal political agenda, and in this case, apparently lacks the scruples to do so with honesty.

Sure, Freedom of Speech gives the ALA the right to do this, and the same rights are enjoyed by the individuals or groups who protest "public" funding of materials they find objectionable, and reasonably expect publicly funded libraries to be accountable to the people who fund them. Ask yourself, "Where's the real special interest group here?" On the one hand, there are individuals or groups that are voicing truthful objections. On the other is a national organization that seeks to deprive them of that right.

In my book, the ALA's annual propaganda campaign does not seek to promote or protect free speech -- it abuses that basic right.

The ALA is not seeking to deprive people of the right to criticize the content of books and other materials. All they are doing is reporting what books are being challenged across this country, and what have been banned by various school boards and libraries. This is simple information.

I find it interesting that you see something threatening about shining a spotlight on the challenges, highlighting the objections, and allowing individuals to decide whether they're legitimate, or whether they're motivated by unreasonable fear.

I have seen so-called Christians try to get C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L'Engle banned because these Christian theologians promote "magic". I have seen campaigns against Harry Potter because it supposedly promotes witchcraft. Now, these individuals are well within their rights to say what they think, and nobody's stopping them. But it's not my fault if I find their activities inane and decide to laugh at them.

Indeed, if they see such activity as a threat against what they do, maybe they should ask themselves if what they do is actually sensible. But I doubt it. I applaud the ALA for bringing to the general public's attention these threats to try and control what my child picks up from the public library I frequent.

> Capitalism and the free market do a much more efficient job than any government could every dream of doing.

Not to those who can't afford the price. Thus the poor of our society are locked out of the tools they need to improve their lot in society, thus perpetuating poverty. I believe access to certain types of information is a fundamental human right. Thus I am a strong supporter of libraries. A society that has access to loads of information at their fingertips can better keep their governments in check.

Thank you, James Bow. You worded it perfectly. As a librarian, I found (barnacle) bob's comments irritating, but not surprising as his are the comments of someone who does not understand why librarians (and booksellers) celebrate Banned Books Week. It is not to promote a particular agenda, but rather to show which books have been requested, by special interest groups, to be banned from bookshops and libraries. The patron can form their own opinions from there.

Douglas' retort regarding censorship and not being able to find a 1952 copy of Popular Mechanics shows a classic example of missing the point. You CAN find a 1952 copy, but it might be on microfiche instead of a hard copy. Your friendly neighborhood reference librarian can help you in your search. Librarians are archivists as well as curators of their collection of materials, which means that decisions regarding what to keep is often based on physical space and patron demand. Every attempt is made to keep materials available even if the paper copy is no longer kept in the collection. This is why librarians go to graduate school to learn their profession; throughout grad school we discuss, again and again, the requirement to keep one's personal beliefs out of the job. We think and rethink each decision so as not to take a misstep in what to buy, what to keep, and what to make available. The largest constraint on our collections is not whether a book is socially acceptable, but whether we have the funding to buy said materials.

Last time, people. It's about resources, not censorship. I realize I'm way out of my element here with you lefties, but the cries of censorship just because the State doesn't make it available to the masses free of charge makes my libertarian blood boil. I think libraries in general are an excellent use of public funds, but someone, somewhere has to make the call as to where the money is spent. And I am painfully aware, Analemma, what a Herculean job that is.

All I'm saying is a library (or librarian, specifically) choosing Popular Mechanics or Madonna's Sex or any of that Harry Potter nonsense doesn't even come close to censorship. This is America, and yes, it's available somewhere else. So stop whining and do a little leg-work, m'k?

And Mr. Bow, your point of controlling the information to keep those below poverty level, did you see the titles on the list? We're not talking about Plato's Republic or Newton's Principia Mathematica. If there's a way that Stephen King, Judy Blume, Harry Potter, or hell, even Heather Has Two Mommies is going to help the downtrodden rise up and overcome, I'd love to hear it.

Now, I'm off to my local library to see if Mein Kamph is on the shelf. Anyone wanna give me odds that I find it?

I don't feel threatened by the ALA any more than James feels threatened by my comment (although he did feel compelled to respond to it in two installments...)

I simply pointed out that the ALA is misusing the word "banned" in a purposely inflammatory manor, and is being dishonest about their intentions, which are to limit the impact of their critics' free speech and reduce the accountability of libraries to the communities they supposedly serve and from which they receive funding. If these good socialists had their way, they and the government would have a greater influence over what books were on the shelves than the patrons would.

As for the religious nuts, for most of them the motivation is clearly monetary. If you listen to these snake oil salesmen for more than a few minutes, you'll find that they're not asking people to march down to the library and complain nearly as often as they're asking them to send in (more) money. They are clearly insincere, and are playing on the fears of the uninformed, much like the ALA is doing with their propaganda.

Capitalism and the free market do a much more efficient job than any government could every dream of doing.

This is still a true statement. It should not be the responsibility of any government to provide every book and periodical to anyone, anytime. While our library systems do an outstanding job of maintaining and acquiring many types of materials, they should never be the sole source. They simply aren't as capable or as efficient as the free market system, as my e-bay example points out. I further suggest that publicly funded availability of these "Ten Banned Books" would do nothing to reduce poverty. We should get more people to read the books that are already there!

I fully support the existence and tax payer funding of the public library system, and contributed funds when this community was seeking such for a long overdue new and larger library. If it weren't for a "bookmobile" that drove 20 miles every two weeks to reach folks like me, I'd likely still be working on the farm in rural Louisiana where I was raised. In it's time, Harlan Elision's A Boy and His Dog was considered controversial, yet I first found it on the shelves in that mobile library. (I should add that all the books in the world would have been useless to me without the encouragement that came from my family.)

Libraries are good. My point is that what's on their shelves need not include every controversial or questionable book in order for them to help people improve themselves, nor should the decision to offer a book rest solely with the government or the ALA. The community deserves a voice, and the ALA is using dishonesty in an attempt to attenuate that voice, especially when it sings a political tune they don't agree with.

For the price of a super-sized Big Mac Combo and a Happy Meal, just about anybody can buy and enjoy any of the "Ten Banned Books" that are this year's poster-children for the ALA's propaganda. If it's too costly, there's plenty of other (and probably better) selections at a library near you. And certainly, if your not able to find what your looking for, there's a librarian there that will be helpful, regardless of what your tastes are. I'm critical of the ALA's tactics, not librarians.

> Now, I'm off to my local library to see if Mein Kamph is on the shelf. Anyone wanna give me odds that I find it?

Your odds should be good that you'll find it, or you'll be pointed in the direction of another library which has it, or which can send it to you by inter-library loan. This book is available; it hasn't been banned where I am. There was a controversy in Canada when the head of Indigo bookstores, the Canadian equivalent of Borders, said that Mein Kemph was not going to be sold on her shelves. I thought that was a little overplayed because, while it was discouraging to see somebody seeking to ban a book, Indigo Books wasn't a public library, it was a private business, and the head of that business had a right to sell whatever he or she wanted.

As libraries start to pull together, and as technology improves (see the Internet), it should become even easier to make information available to those who seek it. And all of that is a good thing. The principle of libraries has always been to make information available and not to suppress it.

I appreciate Bob and Douglas's statements as to the value of libraries, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. However, I still believe that the whole Banned Books Week is far less the propaganda stunt that they make it out to be. Books have been banned from public libraries and schoolboards, and book challenges are just a step down from a ban, so the statements are not false. The attitude is out there. Some religious nuts have gone a step further and burned books, and I see no reason why we shouldn't report on these incidents and shine a light on the reasons given.

Many of these challenges run counter to the reason why the library was put there in the first place. Whether we are socialist or libertarian, we should not be afraid of information. The free flow of information is the lifeblood of a democracy and attempting to block it, as opposed to just criticizing it, is a dangerous first step.