[Foundation-l] Board resolutions on controversial content and images of identifiable people

[Michael Snow]

On 9/21/2011 7:53 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, phoebe ayers<phoebe.wiki at gmail.com>  wrote:>
>>> 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:
> http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged/index.cfm.
> 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.
I'm unable to find a source on this that doesn't appear to be relying on 
the Wikipedia article in the first place. The supposed rationale seems 
to be that Karlsson is sort of subversive, if you will, and the books 
might undermine traditional concepts of authority (for people of a 
certain era, maybe it also didn't help that the books were popular in 
the USSR). It's possible that somebody somewhere did question its 
inclusion once, which could be true of just about any book. Even if so, 
nothing suggests that the concern had anything to do with encouraging or 
catering to pedophiles. Were that the issue, I would have thought The 
Brothers Lionheart a more obvious target, seeing as how it has young 
boys bathing nude in a river (the scene is illustrated - child porn!), 
and I've never heard of it being banned either.

--Michael Snow