Let's Not Try To Make Book Banning Illegal

Illinois has done it. California has a bill in the pipeline, and so does Pennsylvania. And while I absolutely understand the impulse to make book bans illegal, I am extremely leery of the whole business.

PENAmerica has done extraordinary work tracking the new wave of reading restrictions, as has the American Library Association, which has always kept an eye on book banning shenanigans. And you would currently have to have your head firmly planted under a collection of large boulders not to be aware of the current moral panic resulting in call after call after call (enabled by a variety of ill-considered laws) to get rid of naughty books from libraries.

It's the ALA that has provided a sort of template for these proposed laws with its Library Bill of Rights, which includes these three items right up front:

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.

To be clear, I think these are excellent standards to follow. Every library should follow them. But I don't think they should be turned into a law.

Involving government in the enforcement of rules and escalation of penalties (the template here seems to be "follow these rules or lose your funding") is not always a great idea. And I see few benefits and multiple problems with these.

The bill that is being proposed in Pennsylvania appears to be aimed only at public libraries, so not any help for school libraries, which are on the front edge of this issue. School districts like PennCrest or in Bucks County would be unaffected by this bill. 

The measure could slow down local libraries that have boards captured by far-right boards, but we've seen repeatedly that the folks who want to restrict reading aren't worried about going to far. Telling them, "Stop banning LGBTQ books, or we will cut your funding," is going to provide zero motivation to folks who would just as soon see all library funding cut anyway. 

The law also fails the Dark Future test (a test that folks on all sides of the aisles consistently ignore). The test is this: look at your law and ask yourself how it would be used by your political enemies if they were in charge? Don't create a big hammer on the assumption that you will always be the one holding it.

In this case, we don't even have to imagine the "in charge" part.

No library stocks all the books. It can't. This bill requires us to gaze into the hearts and minds of the librarian who does the selecting. "You don't stock Why Fascism Is Great or the 120-book children's book series All Gays Go To Hell because you are proscribing them because of politics." The same crowd that now circulates lists of books to get rid of will then circulate lists of books to demand that the library stock. Should the library include some right-wing stuff? Absolutely. But as with getting rid of naughty books, there will never be a point when those folks say, "Enough." Right wing children's books are already a growth industry--just imagine when they can get a pipeline into libraries.

You may say that the law would not allow big battles over what the librarian's motives may or may not be. Just stick to the written policy. Okay--but then we're right back where we started, because none of these policies say directly that certain subject matter must be banned because it violates a certain socio-political orthodoxy. 

The courts long ago recognized that identifying pornography is complicated and local and beyond the ability of lawmakers to specifically define and codify (though they haven't stopped trying). This is much in the same vein. Librarians have to make choices, and those choices involve other choices about what's appropriate and for whom and for what age groups and that's all complicated stuff. Right now it's further complicated by folks who think that they've done such a lousy job of parenting that if their child sees just one book that says "LGBTQ people exist" or "White folks have at times in our country's history been really bad to Black folks" that somehow all their parenting will be wiped out, plus folks who think they can rewrite history by sheer force of will, and it is really tempting want to come up with a law that would just shut those people the hell up, or at least neuter them. But I don't believe that's the answer.

The solution is more annoyingly time consuming. Make sure you don't elect crazy anti-reading rights people. Have a process for challenging books that isn't a shadow ban request, and then follow the process, and be prepared to stand up to people who want to short-circuit and twist that process. It's an old teacher trick--wear them down before they can wear you down (understanding that it may take way longer than you wish it would). And don't create new, larger regulatory powers that may or may not end up in the hands of people who are not sympathetic to your values.

That's where I am on this right now. You can come at me in the comments and try to change my mind.