Book restrictions avoid harsh truths about public libraries in the 21st century

Should the government really be in the book selection business?

Over the last few years, lawmakers in different states have grappled with what to do about public libraries stocking books and magazines with obscene images, language, and pictures that might wind up in the hands of impressionable children. Idaho’s solution, passed last legislative session, was a law that requires books with offensive material to be kept out of youngsters’ reach.

Photo by Martin Adams on Unsplash

Per the statute, offensive materials include “any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse and that is harmful to minors” and “any book, pamphlet, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or sound recording that contains … accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct, or sado-masochistic abuse and that, taken as a whole, is harmful to minors.”

To comply with the new law, libraries across the state have been reviewing complaints about books that might fall under the scope of the statute. My friend Brian Almon at the Gem State Chronicle, who is also a trustee of the Eagle, Idaho public library wrote his account of the library board’s decision to move two dozen books from the juvenile section to the adult section and treat three books like alcohol and place them out of reach until an adult asks to check them out.

Brian’s account of what happened is interesting and important because we don’t know the full scope of the board’s discussion; it took place (I believe illegally) behind closed doors. That said, library boards are merely dealing with the Legislature’s requirement to move books library boards might designate offensive.

Here’s where I take issue with the law and others like it across the country: There are an estimated 158 million books in the world. Before a library board commits to restricting access to books, one would necessarily ask why a tiny library like Eagle would have more than two dozen books that could be considered “harmful”? In other words, why are the books are being purchased in the first place? Does the law do anything to stop or even pump the brakes on that? Of course, the answer is no.

Even with the new law, objectionable books are still being purchased at taxpayer expense. If anything, the law frees — even authorizes — libraries to continue to make questionable book purchases. But I think it’s more concerning that the law now gives government library boards the obligation to create lists of “banned books” or “restricted books” which then draws attention to those books that might not ever amount to anything but not for having appeared on a government book list.

Giving a book the designation of “banned” or “restricted” by government is the ultimate attractant. It fuels interest rather than lessen it.

It’s easy to argue that the reason any of this is happening across the nation is because of leftism in academia which has trickled down into the librarian community, and that may play a role here. But it also boils down to the immutable law of government agencies and programs: they exist to remain relevant and to grow. Never forget that public libraries are government agencies.

Were a public library to fulfill its true purpose as a repository of knowledge, it would be filled with dusty old books that may or may not attract popular interest. Days and weeks would go by before anyone sets foot inside. Accordingly, a library fills its shelves with books and other materials that are designed more to attract a board audience than books that are aligned with intellectual pursuits. Success is measured by the number of cardholders and library visitors, not by societal enlightenment.

This is why it is more likely you’ll find books by modern authors on topics of modern interests — and various representations of sexuality is a big topic these days — than you will find the works by and about great thinkers like John Locke, Frédéric Bastiat, Marcus Aurelius, and too many others to name. Even books by my mentor, Idaho writer and political influencer Ralph Smeed, are nearly impossible to come by, according to the online card catalog.

Truly, if the objective of a public library were to make reading materials (and, more broadly, knowledge) available to the masses, government boards could do that today by closing their libraries, thus freeing tax money up for the purchase of e-readers, if that is the desire of the taxpayer.

Using Eagle, Idaho as an example, were it close down the library and allocate its $1.7 million budget to the purchase of e-readers for each of its nearly 33,000 residents, it could just about do it. (I’m not advocating for the city make that move, just pointing out that it could for just a little more than it costs to operate a building with books and employees).

It would benefit everyone if the government would be completely out of the book selection business, freeing people to decide on their own which books to view and which to avoid. It would also put an end to questions about what books the government is purchasing and why, and questions about what books belong on list and which don’t. That would be the best outcome for intellectual advancement in the 21st century.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments.