The column “Must stand up against book bans,” [Recorder, April 28]  by U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern brings up some important questions. However, banning books in general is a very interesting concept that is often framed, as he did, using overly broad ideals about the “freedom to read what you want,” “stand up for freedom,” using “reason,” etc.

Does he really believe that? Is banning books wrong in itself (considering the terms that he used) or is his point primarily about not banning books which express thoughts that he supports? In this way, it sounds similar to the reasoning that “they” use.

Censorship of books happens in libraries all the time, much of which he would probably support. For instance, there are books that are removed because they are considered racist or promote other stereotypes, are thought “overly” religious (violating a separation of church and state) and many other considerations that go against what is determined to be appropriate for the public, etc. The question then is not “should banning books be opposed”, but what standards are we using?

Harold Anderson

Hampden

]]>