None of the libraries had any of it. Not an Arban, not a Clark, not a Stamp, or anyone else.

The failure to include such common and essential literature is obviously a case of censorship. The trumpet is apparently just a little too long and hard for some librarians’ comfort, and I, for one, am outraged.

Or maybe they were using the budget and shelf space for newly released DVDs and Madonna’s porno book.

(To any curious librarians out there: seriously, this is standard literature, and you don’t have it. I have to guess the situation is the same for other interests that I’m less aware of. Ask a musician what to get, not other librarians.)

It’s interesting that ALA has no division or roundtable devoted to copyright issues – which have become really important topics in an age where it is so easy to violate copyright law.

As always, great post!

“How do you respond to the Annoyed Librarian’s arguments (she’s on Library Journal’s website)? She argues that the books aren’t really “banned” since they’re still widely available.”

Here are the responses I got from OIF:
“The briefest answer is this: public schools and public libraries are government agencies that operate pursuant to the First Amendment. Any official suppression of a book for the ideas it contains is unconstitutional censorship, a book ban.”

“But also this: AL presumes that everyone has the money and agency necessary to obtain a book from other sources, and that multiple copies of the book are widely available. AL’s presumptions are patently untrue. Remove a book from a school or public library, and you have banned the book for those without the means of obtaining book; when the book is rare or out of print, you have banned the book for anyone who wants to read it. Either situation is censorship.”