Request for ratings is not censorship

According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, the word “censor” is defined as “the removal or prohibition of anything considered obscene or objectionable.”

The request for adult ratings on audio and written books has no intent to “remove” or “prohibit” anything protected by the First Amendment.

Those who find certain words and phrases offensive are indeed responsible for exercising their right to refrain from attending an “R-rated” movie, subscribing to adult publications or tuning into offensive channels. Those who have no objections to such content have every right to engage in it.

But when it comes to printed and audio books, how does one exercise freedom of the choice to not be subjected to obscene, indecent and profane content as defined under federal laws and regulatory agencies? The local library is certainly no longer a safe option.

With the encouragement of the American Library Association, neighborhood library shelves are filled with selections that contain the same vulgarities banned from television, heard only in R- and X-rated movies, grounds for harassment if spoken at work, and treated with disciplinary action on school campuses. Yet, they are all readily available to any 10-year-old with a library card, no questions asked. Go figure.

The ALA calls it “unprofessional” and reprimands librarians for attempting to influence or sway a child from any selection, ultimately holding parents responsible for their children’s choices. Yet, in many cases, a parent’s request to access their child’s library records will be denied under the protection of the ALA’s Freedom to Read Act. Sound impossible? Call your local library and ask.

Since when did more information than less information become so dangerous?

Wouldn’t therefore the very “removal or prohibition” of information that would only serve to protect our freedom of choice be defined as the ultimate in censorship? Apparently Webster thinks so.

Merrylue Martin

Arlington