On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, phoebe
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe
This seems like an over-hasty statement. There
are many possible
categorization schemes that are neutral; the ALA in fact makes that
distinction itself, since libraries (obviously) use all kinds of labeling
and categorization schemes all the time. The ALA and other library
organizations have taken a stand against censorious and non-neutral
labeling, not all labeling. If you keep reading the ALA page you linked, it
says that the kind of labels that are not appropriate are when "the
prejudicial label is used to warn, discourage or prohibit users or certain
groups of users from accessing the material" -- e.g. a label that reads "not
appropriate for children". That does not mean that picture books for kids,
or mystery novels, or large-print books, aren't labeled as such in every
public library in the country -- and that is the difference between
informative and prejudicial labeling.
Would I be incorrect in pointing out that
American public librarys routinely
exclude world famous childrens book author Astrid Lindgrens childrens
books, because to puritanical minds a man who can elevate himself
with a propeller beany, and look into childs rooms thereby, smacks too
much of pedophilia?
Uh... yes, you would be incorrect? I certainly checked out Astrid
Lindgren books from the public library when I was a kid. I have never
heard of them getting challenged in the US. Citation needed?
The ALA maintains a list of books that do get routinely challenged in
US libraries here:
Note, this just means someone *asked* for the book to be removed from
the public or school library, not that it actually was; libraries
generally stand up to such requests.
Also note that challenges are typically asking for the book to be
removed from the library altogether -- restricting access to it for
everyone in the community -- as opposed to simply not looking at it
yourself or allowing your own kids to check it out. It's the 'removal
for everyone' part that is the problem; the issue here is freedom of
choice: people should have the right to read, or not read, a
particular book as they see fit.
The wikipedia article does mention the controversy, but omits the
fact that several libraries did in fact pull the books from their inventory...