[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Banned Books Week - question

[Shaun Hately]

On 27 Sep 2004 at 17:48, davewitley wrote:

> Sherry wrote:
> 
> > I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.
> 
> Actually, as far as I can tell, Sherry, Shaun and Heidi are all in 
> agreement on the principles.
> 
> As so often is the case, it is the practice that is problematic and 
> it is here, frankly, that I find the ALA's website somewhat 
> frustrating.
> 
> As I understand it, Sherry's position is that the outcome of a 
> successful 'challenge' is to *reinforce* parental rights, because 
> the book is still available to children, but only via parental 
> permission; that of most other list members seems to be that it 
> *denies* parental (and children's) rights because the book is no 
> longer available to children.

Not quite in my case.

The book may well still be available to children, even if it is 
restricted - it depends on the form of restriction. It may be 
absolute (no child may borrow or read this book), or it may be far 
less absolute (this book may not be displayed to children, or 
shelved where children can see it, but is available if a child asks 
for it, or this book is displayed or shelved in an area that is 
restricted to children unless parents have given permission for 
their child to enter that area, for example). 

There are a lot of different potential ways of restricting a book, 
and some I find more acceptable than others - but there are none 
that I find as acceptable as having the books freely available.

In some cases, the issue is that of parental and child rights, in 
other cases, my objections are primarily based on logistics.

In my view, completely restricting a book so children cannot read 
it in a public library is a violation of the rights of both parents 
and children. Full stop.

Having the book available if children ask for it, is also a 
restriction of the child's rights - though a lesser one. This is 
because children, especially, tend to select books by looking at 
them. If the book is not available for them to see, they are 
extremely unlikely to ask for it.

Now whether this is a major problem or not for me, depends on how 
far it goes. It's a slippery slope argument really. 

Why are the books being restricted? I'd have little problem, 
personally with, say, Alex Comfort's "The Joy of Sex" being kept 
under a counter and only available on request. I would have serious 
issues if Robbie Harris' and Michael Emberley's "It's Perfectly 
Normal" was handled in that way.

And the problem is, if this is done, then frankly, I think in 90% 
of libraries, "It's Perfectly Normal" will wind up under the 
counter.

Now, the thing is, these are my *personal* views. There are some 
people who would think "The Joy Of Sex" is something that should be 
out in the open. There's some people who think "It's Perfectly 
Normal" should be sealed in a lead lined box and dropped into the 
Marianas Trench.

And people with all three of those views could well wind up being 
the person at your local library who is deciding what should and 
should not be restricted.

Restriction in this way, will only seem a good idea to people, in 
my view, if their local libraries decisions match their own 
personal views. That's just as true for me as anyone else.

A separate restricted shelf, or a separate restricted area - my 
concern about that is primarily logistical. I don't see how anyone 
can reasonably decide what books will wind up in that area, and 
which books won't. There would be some fairly 'easy' calls, 
probably. But a great many hard ones.

The books I mentioned in a previous post - any librarian who has 
read the first three books in the Hope Nation series, and shelved 
them publically, suddenly gets book 4 (Fisherman's Hope) and is 
likely to simply assume that it belongs in the same place as the 
other books. Or if the librarian does read it, you could wind up 
with a series where Books 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 are available to all - 
and Book 4 isn't.

If there's a restricted section, then it becomes fairly likely that 
any book that is even remotely suspect, will be placed in that 
section simply to play it safe. Gradually you are likely to end up 
with a restricted section that contains mostly books that shouldn't 
be restricted.

If people could guarantee this wouldn't happen - I'd have less 
problems with the ideas. But nobody, I think, can make such 
guarantees.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia