Libraries are no place for censorship

By IR Staff - 09/18/08
Quite a controversy has been stirred in the past few weeks over a single book at the Lewis and Clark Library.

The book, “The Joy of Gay Sex,” was petitioned to be removed from the library’s shelves after a Helena man stumbled upon it on one of his frequent visits to the library.

In a public hearing Tuesday night, the testimonies of supporters advocating to keep the book slightly outnumbered those who wanted it removed from the shelves.

The debate over this book, which has been available at the library since the early 1990s, resides over whether the content of the book belongs in a public library setting, paid for by taxpayer money, for all to see.

But the heart of the argument goes beyond the content of a single book and points to the type of resource a public library should be.

And it should be a place free of prejudice.
That means making available books that serve a wide variety of interests. A library should be the vehicle to learn, the portal to information.

Much like a newspaper, a library should be a reflection of the community in all the books and services it offers.

On the eve of Banned Book Week, Sept. 27 to Oct. 4, the only national celebration of the freedom to read, it’s relevant to note the history behind the challenge of books in libraries, schools and bookstores.

Thousands of books have been challenged over the years, for reasons ranging from violence or sexuality, profanity and slang, racial and social.

It’s interesting also to look at some classics that have banned from libraries in the past:

-- “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain

-- “Forever ...” by Judy Blume

-- “Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger

-- “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” by J.K. Rowling

-- “Beloved” by Toni Morrison

Indeed, nearly every book on the library shelf could potentially offend or disgust a reader. And there are some subjects which have no place anywhere.

Yet it would be a far greater disservice to a community — and to democracy — to have a library that censors what people can and cannot see.

Reader Comments:
PaulCohen wrote on Sep 18, 2008 12:44 PM:
" In testimony given at the most recent library board meeting I addressed the canard of this being a free speech and censorship issue. You can see my testimony at www.thepathoftruth.com, on the Notice Board, along with a summary of testimonies from the first board meeting with commentary. More from this week's board meeting is in the works.

The IR should know better that to stake out such a position. Come on, people, you won't even let someone write a letter to the editor here that mentions p...orn...ography, yet you champion keeping a book in the library that has vile depictions of homosexual orgies. Do you also disallow the use of the word "hypocrites"?

I said many things in an interview granted to Alana Listoe, very little of which made it into your paper, and what did was out of context. And you have the nerve to disallow discrimination based on standards of decency whereas you exercise discrimination based on prejudice against decency and godly reason? Shame on you.

Skosena, you say you are a "bible believing christian." You are nothing of the sort, except by your own false definition. Jesus Christ laid down His life to deliver people from their sins, but you are in agreement with providing information that validates them in sin, even laying a trap for those not yet ensnared. You are worse than a sodomite.

Al, who appointed you to preach your brand of "morality"? You contradict yourself. You also confuse terms. What you call freedom is lawlessness. Freedom brings life, but lawlessness death. Your free tongue is lawless, evilly surmising my motives, even stating them as fact without evidence. I have no desire whatsoever to try to protect you from the consequences of your sins. God forbid that I should try to deny you the destruction you demand. You fully need and deserve to reap the fruits of your ways, as you do even now and will.

Nevertheless, I speak the Truth for the sake of all, and should any of you be ashamed of your conduct and repentant, I would be glad of that. "

patriot wrote on Sep 18, 2008 11:07 AM:
" The IRs opinion concerning the removal from the library The Joy of Gay Sex seems a little contradictory. The second to last paragraph, Indeed, nearly every book on the library shelf could potentially offend or disgust a reader. And there are some subjects which have no place anywhere. So, how do we define nearly. By definition, is the IR going to be the Censor and make the determination of what is appropriate and not offensive. Why not place the book along side copies of Playboy and Playgirl to be fair to people of all sexual orientations. Or the library can have separate sections, Fiction, Non-Fiction, Straight Sexually Oriented People and Not so Straight. Ardent Christians are opposed to the ardent liberals, somehow we should be able to compromise.
Its not surprising the IR has responded to this controversy with an opinion that is not very well written and fails to articulate the true meaning of freedom of speech and the press. I would like to thank the IR for affirming my impression of the IRs journalistic mediocrity. "

cest moi wrote on Sep 18, 2008 10:11 AM:
" This situation serves the families of Helena by bringing to parents' attention the quality of literature at Lewis & Clark Public Library.
Conversely (or not - who knows?), this situation lets young children know the quality of literature at Lewis & Clark Public Library.
But let's keep hammering this censorship issue - after all, it's all about choice, and we want our children to make well-informed choices; especially about sex. And if children can't get information from their parents or their churches regarding morality and life choices, then it's the public libraries' responsibilty to provide the necessary resources to help shape your children's lives.

I stand by my comment yesterday encouraging families to have their children wash their hands after visiting the Lewis & Clark Library. "

skosena wrote on Sep 18, 2008 9:08 AM:
" I am a bible believing christian...I am morally opposed to the gay life style. That being said....I think the book should STAY... I want our library to serve and educated all kinds of interests. There are those that do not agree with my faith....or hunting...or having children...but we should not and can not dictate to one another what we believe or embrace. And as a parent it is my job to monitor and police what my children read and where they browse in the library. "

al wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:58 AM:
" Kudos to the IR for taking this public stand against the most recent attempt at library censorship. The self-appointed moralists behind such efforts to censor are less concerned about "protecting society" than they are about furthering their own agendas and aspirations. Freedom-loving people must never fail to confront them and deny them. "

Colton wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:50 AM:
" Question? What is the IR point of view on current library Electronic Access Policy? Specifically paragraph 4 - "All Internet resources accessible through the Library are provided equally to all library users."

Does this mean the IR condones men viewing explicit pornography at a computer station next to an 13 year old girl trying to complete a homework assignment at an adjacent computer?

Or has fear of censorship has replaced common sense? "

monkey wrote on Sep 18, 2008 7:49 AM:
" It's nice to see this from the Library Staff. I'm sure no one will be surprised when you vote to keep the book, regardless of how many of us parents send in comments that we don't want that trash in our library. And good job trying to compare the joy of disgusting gay sex to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. You've just spurred me on to encourage every parent I know to oppose this book. Obviously it's not going to matter how many do, your "staff" has their mind made up. SAD. "