Quote:
Originally Posted by calvin-c
IMO not carrying a book in a library (or deciding to remove one from public availability) is not censorship-it's management. Not allowing a book to be published or sold-now that's censorship. Nobody, that I know of, says that free speech means that the public must have free access to books.
All libraries get rid of books that they believe are no longer popular. I think it's obvious that if a book is as offensive as they seem to believe this one is that it will not be popular among the general public. So I guess it's a question of what the NYPL policy is.
In my experience, when libraries decide books are no longer popular they get rid of them-NYPL obviously didn't. Maybe that's a recognition that popularity is a fad. Or it might be based on their perception of why a book isn't popular. Whatever the reason, no library that I know of is required to carry every book in existence. Some of them may, however, be required (by their own policies) to make every book they carry available to the general public. Obviously the NYPL isn't so required-which I think is a damned shame, but I do not see it as censorship, just management.
|
There's a difference between getting rid of a book because it isn't popular and keeping it locked up because of complaints. If libraries kept every book they ever bought/got through donations, there wouldn't be room to walk. My local library system is almost a hundred years old. I recently volunteered at a library book sale where they were selling the books that weren't being checked out and some of the donations that can't fit on the shelves. In less than a year we gathered enough books that they filled all the tables and two library carts and we had to put books on chairs. Selling old books/making room is library management. Locking up objectionable books is censorship.