| Join NCAC Now | |
EXPRESS YOURSELF! |
in support of free expression The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC free speech first amendment censorship |
Joint letter to Bentonville Mayor and Library Director About Removal of The Whole Lesbian Sex Book
Bob McCaslin, Mayor Cindy Suter, Library Director May 1, 2007 Dear Mayor McCaslin, Ms. Suter, and Members of the Library Advisory Board: We write to express our concern about the recent removal of the book, The Whole Lesbian Sex Book by Felice Newman, from circulation in the Bentonville Public Library. We understand that the book was removed following a complaint and lawsuit brought by a Bentonville resident, Earl Adams, alleging that his sons, aged 14 and 16, were harmed after they accidentally came across the book in the library. The Whole Lesbian Sex Book is plainly not obscene, and is therefore fully protected under the First Amendment. Its value to interested readers is demonstrated, in part, by the fact that the book is recommended by Library Journal, which calls it “superb” and asks “Why can't more heterosexual sex manuals be this good?” Simply because Mr. Adams objects to the book’s contents does not mean that other citizens of Bentonville should be prevented from reading the book if it interests them. According to news reports, Adams has threatened that “[a]ny effort to reinstate the book will be met with legal action and protest from the Christian community,” revealing his view that the library’s contents should conform to his particular, narrow version of Christian beliefs. However, the Constitution prohibits the public library from acceding to such viewpoint-based demands. As many courts have noted, the public library’s role is to serve the entire community, not to reflect or cater to any specific viewpoint. For example, in Sund v. City of Wichita Falls (N.D. Tex., 2000)the court struck downa library’s petition system that allowed “any special interest group to suppress library materials on the basis of their content,” observing that the system “actually facilitates an infinite number of content- and viewpoint-based speech restrictions.” As in Bentonville, Sund v. City of Wichita Falls concerned complaints about literature with homosexual themes, including Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite and Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman. Mr. Adams has a right to his views, but they are not shared by all, and he has no right to impose them on others or to demand that the library policies reflect his personal preferences. The practical effect of acceding to a request to remove materials is to invite others to demand changes in the library’s holdings to reflect their beliefs, leaving library staff vulnerable to multiple, possibly conflicting, demands. If individuals object to a particular work, they are free to read something else. Meanwhile, other readers should have the freedom to choose from an inclusive and expansive reading selection. The Board removed the book, saying that it is “crude” and “unsuitable.” However, this decision reflects, at best, Board members’ subjective judgments, and at worst a decision to bow to Adams’ accusations that the library promotes an “immoral social agenda.” The decision is suspect, in either event. The task of selecting library materials properly belongs to professional librarians, with the assistance of professional evaluations such as those published in Library Journal. We strongly urge you to respect their judgment and return the book to the library’s circulating collection. In our experience, controversies of this sort are best handled by enriching the array of reading materials available, not restricting them, and by including additional voices and titles rather than suppressing or excluding any. If we can be of assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely,
Related » Read local news coverage of the case
|
Action Alerts ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|