The Freedom to Read

Alarmed by the swelling chorus of people who want to ban, brand and burn books, the American Library Association (21,000 members) and the American Book Publishers Council last week issued an eloquent declaration of position.

"The freedom to read," said the declaration, "is essential to our democracy. It is under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove books from sale, to censor textbooks, to label 'controversial' books, to distribute lists of 'objectionable' books or authors, and to purge libraries.

"These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as citizens devoted to the use of books . . . wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read . . ."

The Shadow. "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and to reject obscenity. We do not believe they need the help of censors to assist them in this task. We believe they still favor free enterprise in ideas and expression . . .

"The problem is not only one of actual censorship. The shadow of fear cast by these pressures leads, we suspect, to an even larger voluntary curtailment of expression by those who seek to avoid controversy. Such pressure toward conformity is perhaps natural to a time of uneasy change and pervading fear . . . And yet, suppression is never more dangerous than in such a time . . . Freedom has given the U.S. the elasticity to endure strain. Freedom keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice. Every silencing of a heresy . . . diminishes the toughness and resilience of our society, and leaves it the less able to deal with stress."

The Danger. "Now, as always in our history, books are among our greatest instruments of freedom . . . They are the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice, from which come the original contributions to social growth. They are essential to the extended discussion which serious thought requires, and to the accumulation of knowledge and ideas into organized collections . . . We therefore affirm these propositions:

P: "It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those which are unorthodox or unpopular with the majority . . .

P: "Publishers and librarians do not need to endorse every idea or presentation contained in the books they make available . . . The people should have the freedom to read and consider a broader range of ideas than those that may be held by any single librarian or publisher or government or church. It is wrong that what one man can read should be confined to what another thinks proper.

P: "It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to determine the acceptability of a book solely on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author. A book should be judged as a book. No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free men can flourish which draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say.

P:"The present laws dealing with obscenity should be vigorously enforced. Beyond that, there is no place in our society for extralegal efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression.

P:"It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing the book or author as subversive or dangerous. The idea of labeling . . . supposes that each individual must be directed in making up his mind about the ideas he examines. But Americans do not need others to do their thinking for them.

P: "It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians ... to contest encroachments upon [the freedom to read] by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large . . . No group has the right to . . . impose its own concepts of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic society.

P:I "It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to give full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality of thought and expression . . . What is needed is not only the absence of restraint, but the positive provision of opportunity . . . to read the best that has been thought and said.

"We state these propositions neither lightly nor as easy generalizations. We believe . . . that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal . . . Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours."

Turning to the U.S. overseas libraries, the A.L.A. roundly denounced the "confused and fearful response of the State Department to recent attacks upon this program": "We know that [the libraries'] effectiveness has depended on the conviction among foreign users that here was a free and open source of truth to which they could turn with confidence . . . The hastily changed directives, the delays in the purchase of books, the charges of book burning, the fear to buy any books at all have presented a shocking picture abroad, and have seriously damaged the effectiveness of the program . . ." Clearly, "no one could justify the use of the overseas libraries to disseminate material harmful to the United States . . . [But] the American overseas libraries do not belong to a congressional committee or to the State Department. They belong to the whole American people, who are entitled to have them express their finest ideals of responsible freedom.'

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.