I found a story in the news (article #1, article #2) that brought up the issues of censorship, book removal, and ethics. In sum, libraries in southeast Queensland were forced to pull self-published, apparently 'pornographic' books from their shelves, books that did not pass through their federal classification board (CB) to be classified (I have not seen these books, and therefore cannot comment specifically on their contents). The books were both by Charles Kevin, and contained graphic descriptions of mother-son and brother-sister sex. Kevin shipped his books off to multiple libraries throughout Australia, and apparently at least some institutions accepted them. A library spokeswoman mentioned having to revise policies “to flag self-published books without classifications.” How did they miss these? While reading about this, I wondered if these libraries had any sort of request for reconsideration or review process for those books that were challenged that had passed through the classification board. Also, if the classification board hadn't yet reviewed these books, then who decided they were pornographic (librarians, residents)?
Kevin said he should be free to write these books, and that librarians should monitor who is checking out adult books. I strongly disagree with librarians having to monitor what people are checking out, as librarians should resist censorship. I agree with his right to write what he pleases – but librarians also have the right to choose not to carry his works. Librarians are ethically obligated to provide access to quality resources, materials, and services. This involves thoroughly evaluating and cataloging all material (something that these libraries admitted not doing with Kevin’s books), before making them accessible to patrons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wow! Charles Kevin sounds like he's getting the attention he wanted. Nothing like banning a book to increase its audience. I do agree that the library definitely needed a better collection development process, and a librarian should have at least reviewed the book before putting it on the shelves. You have to be really careful with donated materials to begin with to make sure they are catalogued correctly. I looked at the classification board rules, and I think these books should just be labeled as restricted, and they should have been marked more properly for patrons in the catalog so that there were not any nasty surprises.
I agree about the restricted labeling-there were 3 categories of books that the board said were 'submittable' and had to be classified first: (a) are likely to cause the publication to be classified RC, or
(b) are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold or displayed as an unrestricted publication, or
(c) are unsuitable for a minor to see or read.
I haven't seen them, but it sounds like they might fall into at least one of those categories.
This is a wonderful example of what we are going to learn more about via this class.
Publicity can really help sell more books, but this author's topic is one very sensitive similar to topics such as gay and lesbian rights, capital unishment, and abortion. As we all know, published materials on these topics always elicits a firestorm of controversy, and probably always will.
I agree that books of this nature should be listed in the catalog with adequate disclaimers (RC) and categorizations,and maybe should be physically located in a difficult to reach area for children. (Like Playboy and such behind counters).
Wasn't Kevin the clever author?! But really what are the responsibilities of librarians? Isn't there the potential for infringing on peoples' rights in almost everything we do? Collection development, cataloging, circulation, reference. It can be a very tricky business. All the more reason for us to talk about intellectual freedom and professional ethics.
Post a Comment