Banned Books

Since the dawn of time people have exhibited the need to communicate experiences, ideas, and desires. Cave painting, story telling, literature, stone monuments—these are all examples of people attempting to preserve, for posterity, and convey the human record to future generations.

This is thought struck me as I pondered censorship, intellectual freedom and Washington, DC:
It strikes me that the Thomas Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC is one of the most meaningful monuments in the nation from an information standpoint. Which is to say that, it memorializes one of the greatest (and some might argue most controversial) figures in the history of the nation who also happened a staunch supporter of intellectual freedom. Jefferson is one of the most accomplished figures in the history of the nation, he was: a naturalist; an agriculturalist; a scientist; a geographer; a musician; a lawyer; an architect; an inventor, a magistrate and county lieutenant; a representative in the House of Burgesses; a Virginia legislator; the governor of Virginia; the secretary of state, under President George Washington; the vice president of the United States, under John Adams; the president of the United States; the Minister to France; an educator; the founder of the University of Virginia, and more. Perhaps it was his commitment to his own education that made Jefferson appreciate the powerful role that information plays in society. Whatever the case, Jefferson was convinced that the key ensuring the success of the nation was to preserve and convey information to future generations, who would use this information to adapt and advance. To that end he was a staunch supporter of intellectual freedom, and his words, immortalized in stone, stand as a testament to his firm commitment to intellectual freedom. Jefferson states, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” These words prove, in no uncertain terms, that Jefferson believed access to information free of censorship was part and parcel of democracy. This monument provides visitors with a sense of the limitless possibilities education and knowledge can provide. As well a stirring call to safeguard the freedom to access information as a fundamental right, which makes it one of the most important monuments from an information standpoint.

So, now we practice tyranny of the mind through censorship of the book? Well, that my friends is as slippery as the slope gets, so to speak. While I don't stock my shelves with Mein Kampf, as--my patrons do not demand it, I do find something terribly wrong with the thought of denying someone access to a book that they really want to read. Yeah, my library has a challenge policy in place, because I work in a specialized library and I'm in the business of pleasing my patrons; nevertheless, if someone asked for a book I would do everything in my power to connect them with that book (that being said I also understand that parents have a legal right to weigh in on their child's access to certain information, and I respect that); because, who am I to adjudge the relative value of a book? Who am I to say that someone may or may not read a particular book?