Censorship is a direct challenge to intellectual freedom, while Information Professionals are in a position to be guardians to defend those freedoms of thought, access to information and freedom of expression. CILIP Scotland President Dr David McMenemy looks at what we can learn from the past to inform our current decisions and actions.

A PERUSAL of news sites and newspapers over the past few years would certainly confirm Malley’s hypothesis that when it comes to censorship stories, “there is no issue in librarianship which is more likely to bring libraries on to the pages of the press” (Malley, 1990, p.1). With such stakes at play it can often seem that each professional crisis of the moment is existential and necessitates new ways of thinking and presents hitherto unseen challenges that librarians have never faced before.

However, when it comes to censorship challenges in libraries there is rarely anything we have not seen before as a profession, and it is important that we are aware of our body of knowledge and previous historical experiences in this area to provide the necessary steel to deal with modern iterations of it with confidence. Ultimately, we are not alone in these challenges, and the collective support of our current colleagues, allied with engagement with the wisdom and experience of those who came before us, are both important in cementing our strength for any challenges that may come.

Censorship and libraries

Writing in 1972 in his seminal work Censorship in Britain, noted Irish barrister Paul O’Higgins observed that there, “is a curious coyness in Britain about the whole subject of censorship… indeed, very many deny that censorship exists in the country at all” (O’Higgins, 1972, p.11). Sensing what he also believed to be a reticence in Britain to even define the concept of censorship properly, O’Higgins defines it as: “the process whereby restrictions are imposed upon the collection, dissemination and exchange of information, opinions, and ideas” (O’Higgins, 1972, p.11). This is a suitable definition for our endeavours in librarianship, focusing as it does on three of the key activities libraries exist for: collection, dissemination, and exchange.

Thompson’s study of censorship in British public libraries covers the period between 1900 and 1974, but he tells us that “censorship in public libraries is as old as the public library movement itself” (Thompson, 1975, p.1). Thompson provides us with an overview of censorship in public libraries in the UK chronologically from 1900-1939, and then decade by decade until 1974. Several examples can be selected from his work to give a flavour of just how censorship in public libraries has manifested in our country.

In 1910 the novel Ann Veronica by H.G. Wells, a story about an emancipated young woman during the time of the Suffragettes, was withdrawn from circulation by the Beverley Public Library. In 1913 Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones was banned in Doncaster after “extracts were presented [to the library committee], some indecent, impure, and objectionable” (Thompson, 1975, p.4). In 1935 The classic Scots novel, Sunset Song, by Lewis Grassic Gibbon was withdrawn by Aberdeen Public Library deemed “unsuitable for general circulation” (Thompson, 1975, p.4). Thompson’s work presents multiple examples through the years, but a constant is evident that someone believes an item to be detrimental to public morals in some way.

Thompson’s work is well worth seeking out if you have not come across it before, even just as an overview for how societal tastes during different time periods, and also periods of crisis and conflict, impacted on the materials public libraries were able to provide to users. An interesting chapter to peruse explores how the views or behaviour of an author of a work coming under scrutiny can lead to calls for their work to be censored, something we see also in the modern era for some creators. The chapter in question relates to the P.G. Wodehouse affair, where the noted author received significant criticism for broadcasting radio programmes from Berlin during World War II, seen as aiding the enemy. Calls came to censor his books in public libraries, with several authorities acquiescing. At the same time, regular columnist in The Library World, Eratosthenes, argued in 1941 that:

“Not a week passes when the librarian himself is not displeased by something in some book or other. But the prevention and not the promotion of undue censorship is the very essence of his work” – (cited in Thompson, 1975, p.49).

Here one is reminded of US librarian Jo Godwin’s famous quote that “a really good library has something in it to offend everyone”.

Ultimately Thompson provides a useful, and in places sobering, summary of how censorship in public libraries has manifested in Britain’s public libraries up to 1974. In terms of the who, as in the people wishing censorship to occur, he found that this could essentially be listed under four categories: (1) individual readers, (2) organised groups, (3) council members, and (4) librarians. In terms of the categories of the types of material challenged and censored, he identified: (1) political literature, (2) religious literature, (3) literature with sexual content, and (4) a miscellaneous category, which he includes challenges to materials by authors such as the aforementioned Wodehouse, Enid Blyton, and Richmal Crompton, among others (Thompson, 1975, p.211).

News International dispute (1986)

There is often justifiable shade thrown at the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 in terms of the vague concept within it of a “comprehensive and efficient” library service. Nevertheless, as interpreted by the Court in the dispute over the removal of News International publications from libraries in several Labour-party controlled council public library services during a major industrial dispute in 1986, the Act has given public libraries a significant legal basis for defending intellectual freedom and combating political censorship.

The industrial dispute between News International (NI) and several trade unions was instigated by NI ceasing production of its newspapers in Fleet Street premises and moving the production to a facility in Wapping, with the subsequent refusal by trade union members to do so leading to their dismissal. The call to support the trade union members in their dispute was heeded by Labour councils, and over 30 councils in England, Scotland and Wales decided to remove NI publications from their libraries for the duration of the dispute.

This was a move that was both supported and disputed by the profession in the pages of the Library Association Record of the time, leading to a heated debate. Curry (1997) reports that some members feared that the action could set a dangerous precedent, leading to reciprocal bans by Tory councils in the future for political purposes they favoured. Members in agreement with the action suggested that censorship was an “inconsequential” price to pay when hard political choices were necessary, or that the action was not an intellectual freedom issue as it targeted owners of the publications, not the content, while some members argued that the purpose of the code of ethics of the time was not to “fetter” trade unionism, and as such the banning of the newspaper was a right action to show solidarity with other workers (Curry, 1997, p.218). For its part, the Library Association was in opposition to the removal of the materials:

In our view it is manifestly not right that councillors should allow their personal opinions on a political or industrial matter to stand in the way of the right of access of the public to all publications which can reasonably be provided… The Library Association is deeply concerned that the imposition of these bans constitutes a major breach of the traditional principles that public libraries should be a neutral and non-partisan service.
– (LAR 88 (4) 1986, p.163).

A judicial review was sought by the publisher and printer of the newspapers, the holding company of the newspapers, and residents in Camden, Hammersmith, Fulham, and Ealing.

An interesting point to note in the case was that advice from both lawyers and librarians to the councils concerned was very much opposed to the action. The summary of the court case cites advice provided by Mr J. Goudie QC, to Islington Borough Council, subsequently circulated to a number of other councils that, “in making any judgement in exercise of its duties [the council] should be guided by the ‘library’ criteria” only and that “Other ‘non-library’ considerations however relevant to the public interest should not be taken into account.” The summary of the case also highlights that the Director of Libraries in Camden advised against the ban in the public interest.

Lord Justice Watkins observed that it is “clear to me that the respondents’ reason for imposing the ban was solely that it could used as a weapon in aid of the dismissed print workers” and that the ban “was for the duration of the dispute.” The judge argued that:

How in these circumstances can it be justifiably said that a ban of that kind is consistent with the respondents’ duties under s.7 of the [PLM] Act, the dominant one of which is to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for all persons, and a subordinate one, to have regard to the desirability of securing that facilities are available for reference to printed matter sufficient in range of meet the general requirements and special requirements of adults?

– (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.32)

Lord Justice Watkins continued later in the judgement that:

I am of the opinion that the ban imposed by the respondents was for an ulterior object. It was inspired by political views which moved the respondents to interfere in an industrial dispute and for that purpose to use their powers under this Act… I would go as far to say that no rational local authority would for a moment have thought that such a ban was open to it to impose in discharge of its duty to service libraries.

– (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.49)

The judgement becomes even more coruscating later:

[The respondents] deliberately set out to punish the applicants. They had readily and easily available a weapon which they proceeded wilfully to use regardless of the library requirements of the public which should have been, but was not then, their concern. It cannot be other than to all sensible and right-minded people alarming, I think, to see such irresponsible behaviour by persons elected to serve their interest according to clearly stated law and in defiance of impeccably correct advice. There could hardly be a clearer abuse of power, the remedy for which it is for this court and not the Secretary of State to provide. I would certainly provide it

– (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.66)

The much-criticised section seven of the Public Libraries and Museums Act, 1964, utilised as a bulwark against censorship, then, the decision to remove the publication in question declared “ultra vires and void as an abuse of power” (R v London Borough of Ealing and others, p.69).

Perhaps, on reflection, we should have been unsurprised regarding the decision of the judicial review in the NI case. While Thomspon felt that public libraries lacked specific statutory protection as censorship was not referenced in the PLMA, in 1972 Irish barrister and academic Paul O’Higgins interpreted the PLMA as it related to censorship and offered that,

“… the legal position is fairly clear. Public libraries are not authorized [sic] to exercise a choice of the material they make available on the any grounds, other than those implicit in the idea of providing an efficient library service to the particular locality in which the library is situated” – (O’Higgins, 1972, p.74).

O’Higgins continued that, [under the PLMA]

“any discretion not to display or make available to the public books or periodicals on political grounds, or because the local library authority disapproves of the moral or social tone of the works concerned, appears to be unlawful” – (O’Higgins, 1972, p.74).

Professor O’Higgins analysis was clearly proved correct 14 years later!

In conclusion

Of course, there will be many in the library profession who believe that the choice of the councils involved in the NI case were correct, and that supporting the trade unions was an important societal duty. This reveals the nature of some of the ethical dilemmas at play in supporting freedom of access to information and freedom of expression. As CILIP’s recently launched Intellectual Freedom policy states:

The right to intellectual freedom is a foundation of a strong and representative democracy, and of a society in which everyone can contribute to, participate in and benefit from the intellectual, creative and cultural life of their community – (CILIP, 2024)

This is clearly an important statement for librarianship to make; however, one of the challenges of censorship in general, and perhaps even more so the censorship exacerbated by the so-called culture wars, is the tribal element of it. As a profession, we should never seek to be on the side of repression or even the wrong side of history, but equally, if material is legal and a patron wishes to access it, we must consider that request in good faith.

Ultimately it must be recognised that “those who engage in censorship are always apparently altruistic – they invariably claim to be acting for the benefit of others” (Thompson, 1975, p.212). There is a strong chance that if your tribe is attempting the censorship, you may have some sympathy with it, and vice versa if it is being undertaken by the other side you will be vehemently opposed. As intellectual freedom is a human right, it is important to reflect on the old maxim that if you do not believe in human rights for those you dislike or despise, then you may not actually really believe in human rights at all.

As challenging as that is for most of us, it is an important consideration when we reflect on censorship matters in libraries. The fact that our profession exists to service society, and not our own egos, raises the stakes and makes our professional engagement with censorship one that we must always be reflective about, but also one that we need to understand mindful of the past, the present, and the future. With what seems like significant immediate pressures facing us, and potentially more on the horizon, we need to engage much more fully with our body of knowledge around these important issues. It is important to repeat the point that none of this is new, and we can and should learn from our professional predecessors who have navigated these stormy waters before us.

References

CILIP (2024) Intellectual Freedom Policy. Available from: https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/intellectualfreedom

Curry, A. (1997). The Library Association Record and Censorship: A Content Analysis. Libri. 47 (4). pp.214-233. O’ Higgins, P. (1972). Censorship in Britain. Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.

Library Association Record, 88 (4), 1986, p.163. Malley, I. (1990) Censorship and libraries. The Library Association.

R v London Borough of Ealing and others ex parte Times Newspapers Ltd and others (1987) IRLR 129 Thompson, A.H. (1975). Censorship in Public Libraries in the United Kingdom during the Twentieth Century. Bowker.

Further Resources

CILIPS (2023) REVEAL: Reinforcing Ethics and Values for Effective Advocacy for Libraries. Available from: https://www.cilips.org.uk/reveal/.