Removing poster was ‘censorship’

Sara Scully of Lambertville
I read The Beacon article, “Election poster strains city library relationship” with great concern — for our city and for the journalistic blinders its writer is wearing.
   It is an act of censorship for a city to remove items from a library even those of a partisan nature.
   The Library Bill of Rights clearly states, “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”
   And, furthermore, “books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.”
   The removed document, which noted errors in the interpretive statement of the Nov. 6 ballot question regarding the library’s status, fit this criterion entirely.
   The document was relevant to the community the library serves and enlightened us to another perspective on the referendum. How disappointing this very paper, which celebrated our library’s Hunt for Banned Books last month with a front page story, completely missed the most important point of this story: censorship.
   Indeed, by focusing on the debate over the accuracy of the document’s facts without ever verifying which side of the debate was actually correct, the article only served to up the ante and totally fell down on its journalistic responsibility to get the facts, namely what percent the city actually has to increase the library’s budget next year.
   We look to our libraries for free access to a variety of perspectives regardless of whether they are right, wrong or agreeable to us.
   In the words of Supreme Court Justice Jackson, “The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with and even pay for a good deal of rubbish.”
   We look to our newspapers to cut through the “rubbish” and get the facts. While the City of Lambertville should have let library patrons decide whether the document was correct or “rubbish,” instead of censoring it, The Beacon newspaper in taking up the charge of the document’s inaccuracy should have helped us decide by providing the ultimate facts.
   Instead, this piece simply showcased a debate and stirred the pot.
Sara Scully
Lambertville