This paper will focus on two major issues concerning censorship. First and foremost, it will examine the definition or definitions of censorship in different contexts, as well as examples of the different types of censorship that take place regularly. Secondly, it will examine the role of the library, particularly, in the use of and fight against censorship, and will speak to the library’s responsibility to its community, to itself, and to intellectual freedom.

1. Ahniwa Ferrari
December 17, 2006
Sex, Violence, and ―Hail Mary‖: Censorship in the Public Library
Introduction
The issue of censorship is a complicated one, and one which many people respond to with strong
emotion. It is an issue that ―brings forth strong ideas, voicing of beliefs, and sharing of
convictions‖ (Warnock 23). Though in today‘s age the idea of censorship brings to mind
banned, or burned, books, the blocking of explicit lyrics in music, and perhaps even the rating of
movies to keep inappropriate audiences away from certain content, it is likely an idea that pre-
dates the recording of information. At least, the word itself, ―censorship‖, stems from the root
Latin verb censere, meaning to assess, estimate, or judge (Wilkinson 185). It‘s difficult to tell
what the role of the censor may have been in its ancient context, though the verb, at least, implies
assessing the quality of, estimating the worth of, and judging the pertinence of information. In
modern times, the idea of censorship is no clearer. Determinations of what does and does not
constitute censorship depend largely on context, particularly the information venue, as well as
the players, involved. Even then, where one person might simply say ―selection‖, another may
cry ―censor!‖
The fact is, excepting certain demonstrative examples, the idea of censorship lies firmly
in a grey area, hovering between the ideas of moral and educational protection, the abuse of
power in asserting personal bias, and, of course, the sanctity of intellectual freedom. This paper
will focus on two major issues concerning censorship. First and foremost, it will examine the
definition or definitions of censorship in different contexts, as well as examples of the different

2. Ferrari 2
types of censorship that take place regularly. Secondly, it will examine the role of the library,
particularly, in the use of and fight against censorship, and will speak to the library‘s
responsibility to its community, to itself, and to intellectual freedom.
Defining Censorship
The definitions of censorship themselves serve with their wording to either vilify or praise the
practice, or take a carefully neutral ground. In its simplest form, censorship implies that in any
selection of information, there is a nonselection, or censorship, of other information. That is to
say, after information is assessed, estimated, and judged, the information that doesn‘t make the
cut is censored, or deselected (Wilkinson 185). Since, from a library standpoint, it is impossible
to create a truly universal collection, and since, furthermore, for every item that is selected, in
most libraries there are thousands of items in various formats that are not, this definition seems
too broad to serve the purpose of any useful debate on the subject.
Guy Marco creates a strict definition of the term adapted from the language in the
American Heritage Dictionary: ―Censorship: The prohibition, by a legally authorized examiner,
of written, spoken, or graphic material on the grounds that the material is potentially harmful to
society‖ (15). Contrary to the previous, broad term, which started with the selection of certain
materials and called everything else censored, Marco‘s definition starts with the deselection of
certain materials based on a value judgment of potential harm, thereby indicating that censorship
itself is a positive action, preventing harm. This harm can come in many forms, though the
forms most often cited are moral, political, and religious, generally concerning items of violence,
sex, race, or religion. The problem, of course, is that all of these issues are highly personal and
subjective, and determining what might cause harm to one person, and what might serve another,

3. Ferrari 3
is incredibly difficult and probably should not, in any case, be the decision of any one person,
such as a librarian or other information intermediary. But that issue will be discussed more a
little bit later. Oppenheim provides another definition, that ―the general sentiment behind most
definitions [of censorship] is that something is withheld from access by another. … To draw a
line between material that requires control and of which that does not, could be another way to
define censorship‖ (160).
The standpoint of libraries on censorship is, at least theoretically, incredibly clear, and
they‘ve had plenty of experience with it, indeed, ―censorship in public libraries is as old as the
public library movement itself‖ (Oppenheim 161). Censorship is the direct opposite of
intellectual freedom. Where one exists in strength, the other is diminished, and vice versa. The
American Library Association, in its Library Bill of Rights, emphasizes that libraries should
provide resources for all people in the community it serves, presenting all points of view, and
should challenge censorship and cooperate against restricted speech in all instances (1). In
essence, all materials should be made available to all people, all of the time; no work should be
censored and no expression stifled. This viewpoint can present ethical dilemmas to librarians,
who are only human and therefore have a set of natural biases against certain types of material or
information.
Library workers can, in fact, be the most subtle and effective of all censors, quietly
slipping odious books behind other works, or simple making them difficult to find and retrieve
through poor classification or shelving. Far more often than not, however, censorship is
instigated from outside the library, by an individual or group that feels threatened by ideas
presented in a work or works and want the library to do something about it. Along with moral or
political fears, these responses often come from parents who feel threatened for the sake of their

4. Ferrari 4
children. In speaking on public libraries and intellectual freedom, Conable says, ―Such a
response is quite natural and human; parents are expected to protect their offspring. The concern
may be real, but the requested response – the censorship of library materials – is an inappropriate
means of dealing with perceived danger to children‖ (2). As an historical example, ―In the
nineteenth century, it was three-decker novels in Mudie‘s Library. In the 1950s and 1960s it was
horror comics. The last few decades are full of similar concerns about film and video content,
and its alleged effects‖ (Hannabuss 84).
Censorship, then, is the repression of intellectual freedom through the propagation of one
idea over another, through allowing personal bias to determine the selection of materials, rather
than attempting to create an unbiased, balanced viewpoint through an availability of various
materials. It is, as Ben Franklin may have said, the trade of freedom for security, to which he
may have replied, ―Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one‖ (Jenson 13). Censorship is represented by the deselection of
certain materials, through a conscious choice and for a certain purpose, no matter from which
agency it may be initiated. In fighting censorship, Oppenheim suggests that ―a library should be
committed to presenting as many sides of an issue as possible, even if that material challenges or
criticizes an accepted truth such as the Holocaust‖ (162).
A library’s responsibility?
Each library has its own policy, or mission statement, regarding the purpose behind its
acquisitions, and specifically its role in serving its community. Byrne states that ―The library is
considered to exemplify democratic values in being ‗open to all‘ and designed to accommodate a
plurality of ideas and views‖ (137). The ALA created its Library Bill of Rights in the hope of

5. Ferrari 5
guiding each library to look upon its role in the community as a ―forum for information and
ideas‖ (1). Whether or not it should be the library‘s duty to act as censors in this forum, the fact
remains that they are often remanded to this position through complaints made from within the
community that the library is meant to serve. The library selects the materials that they make
available, after all, so should they not be responsible for the content of those items when the
community takes offence, and therefore responsible for also removing objectionable materials?
Should the library in its capacity as the selector also be forced to be the censor, though it‘s
wasteful of both time and funds? ―Censorship has always thrown up the question of whether
good materials in a library simply ―select themselves‖, and that selection is only a more socially
acceptable word for censorship. Librarians are looking for value for money and quality,
rejecting the trivial, trying to be as accountable with funds as possible‖ (Hannabuss 86).
In a legal sense, there are only three types of items that are explicitly censored. These
materials are either labeled as obscene, deal pornographically with children, or are ―calls to
violence intended or likely to produce imminent lawless action‖ (Jensen 14). Since these
materials are prohibitively censored at a national level in both the United States and Canada, they
should never cross the acquisitive hands of a library in the first place. For all other works,
however, who is best to judge their suitability for a library collection? ―[A]re allegedly immoral
works best ―judged‖ in law courts? Is a parents‘ group the most reliable advocate of internet
filtering? Is the (Christian?) church a realistic point of reference for issues on gay censorship,
Harry Potter wizardry, and adult videos‖ (Hannabuss 82)? Should these works be judged at all?
The ALA Code of Ethics explicitly recommends that librarians ―uphold the principles of
intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources‖ (1). The key word is ―all‖,
suggesting that under no circumstances should a librarian allow censorship to happen. Conable

6. Ferrari 6
adds to this in stating that ―[libraries] serve as neutral ground for opposing positions. Human
beings, after all, are very different from each other‖ (2). He goes on to say that ―The librarian
must be willing and able to defend them all, for to sacrifice the trivial, the controversial, or the
distasteful means sacrificing the ability to defend anything‖ (3). One particularly tricky subject
area in library collections is religious treatment. Kertesz recommends that ―A library must avoid
the appearance of encouraging belief in any one religion, at the same time maintaining a
collection that is representative of the public it serves. That can become difficult in communities
where faith and citizenship are viewed as one‖ (34).
Marco argues that ―most challenges to library selection practice are localized, pertaining
to towns, cities, and school districts. If successful, such challenges results in restriction (limited
censorship), with hardly any suppressive impact‖ (18). Libraries, however, appear to be strongly
affected by any successful campaigns of censorship, particularly in that ―once the librarian has
surrendered on a single occasion, he or she is the first target in future assaults‖ (Conable 3).
Also, many institutions don‘t have the time, money, or inclination to deal with censorship
controversy on a regular basis. This means that if a community exhibits a strong reaction to a
type of material that subsequently leads to a lengthy and emotionally-costly review process, in
the future the library will likely self-censor, or avoid acquiring those types of materials, solely in
order to avoid further confrontations. Similar situations take place in other information venues
as well. Warnock highlights a situation wherein a teacher‘s choice of Siddhartha as a teaching
instrument in his course is attacked by a student‘s parents. Despite the fact that a unanimous
decision was made to keep the item in the curriculum, the teacher himself caved to the pressure
and never assigned the book in his course again (24). The effects of censorship are not always
apparent, but they are certainly forceful, and often have long-lasting repercussions. Some

7. Ferrari 7
libraries, in response to controversy, while willing to buy an item will offer only restricted
access, which amounts to partial censorship. ―This timid response is in the long-established
library tradition of the closed cabinet of restricted materials, accessible through cryptic catalogue
entries such as ‗Sex—see librarian‘‖ (Byrne 139).
―It is important to note that people who complain about materials are not themselves
censors … Censorship only occurs when libraries and librarians respond to complaints about and
challenges to collection materials by removing or restricting books or other items‖ (Conable 4).
Whether or not libraries censor items, the responsibility of dealing with issues of censorship falls
to them as information resource centers serving communities. Invariably, pressures will come
from different sources to challenge various resources, but in every case the final decision belongs
with the library. As communities and their respective libraries are different, so must each library
develop a clear policy for dealing with censorship and challenges to items. Conable advises that
―the library should utilize the experience as a means of making its point about the importance of
the underlying issues of free expression. This can provide a wellspring of community support
and good will that can last long after the shouting has died‖ (3). Warnock quotes Bastian in
recommending that ―The key to resolving the dilemma … lies in the ability of librarians to
reassert their responsibility for the information that is in their libraries…‖ (25).
Libraries, censorship, and the internet
Another area in which libraries face issues of censorship on a day to day basis is in offering
public internet access within their facilities. After the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and
the Children‘s Online Protection Act (COPA) were deemed unconstitutional, the Children‘s
Internet Protection Act (CIPA) passed in 2001, requiring that libraries that receive federal

8. Ferrari 8
funding either install and use internet filtering software, or look elsewhere for their funding. The
Supreme Court upheld CIPA in 2003, stating that it did not impinge on the First Amendment in
that adults could still request to access the library‘s internet on an unfiltered account (Jensen 15).
Despite the inconvenience this can cause many librarians who don‘t always have the time
to play ―techno-babysitters‖ (Jensen 14), filtering software has a penchant for over-restriction,
often causing children to not be able to view certain sites based in faulty filter assumptions about
language or content. Additionally, websites are created and grow much faster than any filtering
company can keep up with, meaning that any attempt to block sites one at a time is completely
fruitless, as two new sites will simply spring up in its place.
The other issue with censoring the internet is the marginalization of those groups that
have found the internet of primary use to form a basis of community identity. ―[These
communities,] based on gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation and sexual orientation …
coordinate their political lobbying, construct their collective identity and share information and
resources through the Internet. It is the medium most closely associated with the struggle for
these freedoms of intimacy‖ (Chalaby 20). These sites, forming communities around these
groups, are exactly the sort that suffer from filtering software applied with a liberal hand. Since
internet content is too diverse to be ―classified according to a handful of categories‖, filtering
software ―invariably blocks a large quantity of information which is suitable for all users.‖
Furthermore, studies found that filtering software typically blocked over 95% of internet material
of interest to youth, and idiosyncratically blocked keyword searches for terms such as ―American
Red Cross‖ (Chalaby 24).
These sorts of filtering software, along with the explicit threat of vanishing funds if
libraries don‘t comply with filtering standards, mean that many librarians are now forced to play,

9. Ferrari 9
at least partially, the part of in loco parentis, a role from which they are otherwise legally and
administratively protected, and one which they absolutely don‘t want Finally, there is a
contradiction in filtering the internet, in that ―The stronger we advocate the right to free access to
Web resources, the more sophisticated filters and more restricted ―gateways‖ to information are
developed. This resembles a situation of continuous and enthusiastic debate on human freedom
with more prisons built‖ (Trushina 418). Our advocacy of the internet as a superb free resource
of information, combined with our provision of ineffectively over-restrictive filters, seems an
odd conundrum indeed.
Conclusion
Censorship can take many forms, and it is never an easy issue to identify or diffuse. It can
appear as a challenge against library materials such as books, against perceived shortages, or
prejudice, on the part of the library‘s collection development, or in the form of internet filtering.
Whatever form it takes, libraries have to learn to deal with it, developing clear policies which
indicate the library‘s role concerning the democratic right of intellectual freedom and freedom of
speech, and balancing that right with service to the community the library serves. ―Librarians
face personal dilemmas which contend with professional responsibilities to meet the needs of
users and to promote the widest possible access to information. Any librarians who might wish
to uphold principles of unrestricted access to information must either accept the boundaries or
struggle against them‖ (Byrne 133).
The library must take careful steps in areas of collection development, ensuring that enough
materials are made available to provide a balanced perspective on controversial issues, and must
be willing to defend those decisions when the need arises. Aside from attempting to maintain

10. Ferrari 10
balance, a librarian should attempt to avoid allowing personal bias to affect his decisions in the
library setting. That libraries do not buy certain materials does not, in itself, constitute
censorship. In a time of ever-shrinking collection budgets, libraries are forced more and more to
make difficult choices about which materials to collect. Censorship occurs when the library
refuses to represent both sides of an issue, or refuses to collect material on a certain subject.
―[T]he major task of public library (sic) is unimpeded universal access to information‖ (Trushina
419). Certain subject, obviously, suffer from a stronger societal bias in general. Whether or not
pornography should be allowed in libraries is a raging debate and one that will not resolve itself
anytime soon. In the interim, the librarian must keep in mind that his role is to ―facilitate access
to information, be that controversial or not, and not to obstruct or hinder that access‖
(Oppenheim 168-169).

11. Ferrari 11
Works Cited
American Library Association (ALA). "Code of Ethics of the American Library Association".
Chicago, IL, 1995. American Library Association. 9 Dec. 2006. <http://www.ala.org/ala/
oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.htm>.
---. "Library Bill of Rights". Chicago, IL, 1996. (2006): American Library Association. 9 Dec.
2006. <http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm>.
Byrne, Alex. "The End of History: Censorship and Libraries." The Australian Library Journal
53.2 (2004): 133-52. Expanded Academic ASAP. Thomson Gale. McGill University
Library. 9 Dec. 2006 <http://find.galegroup.com/itx/ infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-
Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=EAIM&docId=A118343023&source=
gale&srcprod=EAIM&userGroupName= crepuq_mcgill&version=1.0>.
Chalaby, Jean K. "New Media, New Freedoms, New Threats." Gazette 62.1 (2000): 19-29.
Communication Studies: A Sage Full-Text Collection. CSA Illumina. McGill University
Library. 15 Dec. 2006 <http://www-uk1.csa.com>.
Conable, Gordon M. "Public Libraries and Intellectual Freedom". Chicago, IL, 2006. American
Library Association. 9 Dec. 2006. <http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/iftoolkits/ifmanual/
fifthedition/publiclibraries.htm>.
Hannabuss, Stuart, and Mary Allard. "Issues of Censorship." Library Review 50.2 (2001): 81-89.
Emerald. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. McGill University Library. 9 Dec. 2006
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/>.
Jensen, Maggie. "Internet Filtering and Its Effects on Intellectual Freedom." PNLA Quarterly
68.4 (2004): 13-15. OmniFile FT Mega Edition. HW Wilson. McGill University Library.
9 Dec. 2006 <http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/ jumpstart.jhtml?recid=

12. Ferrari 12
0bc05f7a67b1790ed7a0ad5f329b9ad0b0383c648fc858320e056c51b5884042e44f262a5df
829ac&fmt=H>.
Kertesz, Chris. "The Unwanted Gift: When Saying "No Thanks" Isn't Enough." American
Libraries 32.3 (2001): 34-36. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Industries, Inc. McGill
University Library. 9 Dec. 2006 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=4158285&site=ehost-live>.
Marco, Guy A. "Two False Dogmas of Censorship." New Library World 96.7 (1995): 15-19.
Emerald. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. McGill University Library. 9 Dec. 2006
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com/>.
Oppenheim, Charles, and Victoria Smith. "Censorship in Libraries." Information Services & Use
24.4 (2004): 159-70. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Industries, Inc. McGill
University Library. 9 Dec. 2006 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=
true&db=aph&AN=16872297&site=ehost-live>.
Trushina, Irina. "Freedom of Access: Ethical Dilemmas for Internet Librarians." The Electronic
Library 22.5 (2004): 416-21. Emerald. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. McGill
University Library. 9 Dec. 2006 <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/
10.1108/02640470410561938>.
Warnock, Jonelle R. "The Effects of Censorship." PNLA Quarterly 68.4 (2004): 23-26.
OmniFile FT Mega Edition. HW Wilson. McGill University Library. 9 Dec. 2006
<http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790ed7a0ad
5f329b9ad0b0383c648fc858320e056c51b588404206a25973527bb621&fmt=H>.
Wilkinson, Margaret Ann. "Perceptual Differences in Approaches to Censorship: Information
Intermediaries and the Implementation of the Law." The Information Society 13.2

13. Ferrari 13
(1997): 185-93. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO Industries, Inc. McGill University
Library. 9 Dec. 2006 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
aph&AN=9708243511&site=ehost-live>.