Tamara L. Roleff

I read the essays in Chapter 3, "Should Schools and Libraries Practice Censorship?" Viewpoint #1 was an excerpt (2000) from the Family Friendly Libraries website. The author, Helen Chaffee Biehle, believes that libraries should restrict children's access to "obscene" or objectionable materials. However, the fifth article of ALA's Library Bill of Rights says, "A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views" (emphasis added). (Article III begins, "Libraries should challenge censorship...")

The strongest point against Biehle's argument, however, is that libraries and librarians cannot act in loco parentis; it is the parent or guardian's responsibility to be aware of what his or her child is doing at the library and what materials he or she is checking out. Parents have the right to make rules about what their children - and only their children - can access; they cannot expect librarians to act as censors.

Viewpoint #2, authored by Bruce J. Ennis - general counsel to the Freedom to Read Foundation - presented the argument that restricting a minor's access to books or other materials constitutes censorship, and therefore violates the First Amendment. ALA policies, Ennis writes, are based on and consistent with federal and state constitutional protections.… (lisätietoja)