Showing posts with label Freedom to Read. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom to Read. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 1, 2023

"Prizing" books as an unintended consequence of censorship

  Kidd, K. (2009). “Not censorship but selection”: Censorship and/as prizing. Children’s Literature in Education, 40(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10583-008-9078-4

Kidd’s theoretical and critical essay offers a brief history of censorship, book banning practices, and anticensorship in the USA. Most censorship efforts are tied to obscenity, be it pornographic, racist, violent, etc., and bans on children’s books are mostly motivated by the idea of contaminating the youth. Kidd examines the history of literary prizes in connection to book challenges. Kidd claims that book challenges can spark anticensorship efforts that lead to “prizing” of a book, whether the title merits the attention or not. He concludes that the worst thing that could happen to a book is non-attention which results in a book just fading away into the stacks. This article reveals the central role that libraries, librarians, and their selection policies have on anticensorship practices that have become especially important in the past 30 years. Another interesting point of the article is the analysis of censors and anticensors, which Kidd explains as two extremes always “othering” one another, both of which increase attention on a given title. I completely agree that a book disappearing into the stacks is the ultimate "death" of the book. It's interesting to think about how censorship efforts actually bring more attention to books, and I am curious if efforts by adults to censor books leads to the intended audience having more interest in reading the book in question.

Friday, May 6, 2016

Libraries and the First Amendment

Megan Hamby
INFO 266
5/6/16

Klinefelter, A. (2010). First Amendment limits on library collection management. Law Library Journal. 102(3), 343-374. Retrieved from http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofm&AN=502171368&site=ehost-live


This article discusses issues that arise between public and law libraries and the First Amendment. It addresses First Amendment boundaries with collection policies and management and presents cases in which problems regarding censorship and equal protection. Publicly funded libraries have a lot more freedom when it comes to their collection policy. The types of libraries discussed in the article tend to uphold the First Amendment because they are committed to providing full access of information and noncensorship.  In the case Board of Education v. Pico, one school board decided to remove books they deemed as inappropriate and anti-Semitic among other reasons. Some students in the school district ended up filing a suit citing a violation of free speech. The article points out that publicly funded libraries should not practice such policies of banning books in order to avoid issues with the First Amendment. According to the article, “intent to suppress access to ideas may be the same as invidious viewpoint discrimination” (371). I thought this was an interesting article because it made me wonder how libraries weed their collections to fit their collection policy but still uphold the United States First Amendment.