News International building, Wapping, London. Picture via Wiki Commons


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 In 1935 The classic Scots novel, Sunset Song, by Lewis Grassic Gibbon was withdrawn by Aberdeen Public Library deemed “unsuitable for general circula- tion” (Thompson, 1975, p.4).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 detrimen- tal 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, impact- ed 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 criti- cism 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


Autumn 2025


and not the promotion of undue censor- ship 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 mani- fested 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) or- ganised groups, (3) council members, and (4) librarians. In terms of the categories of the types of material challenged and cen- sored, 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 afore- mentioned Wodehouse, Enid Blyton, and Richmal Cropton, among others (Thomp- son, 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 free- dom and combating political censorship. The industrial dispute between News International (NI) and several trade unions was instigated by NI ceasing pro- duction 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 publica- tions from their libraries for the duration of the dispute.


This was a move that was both support- ed 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 danger- ous 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 con- tent, 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


INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL 19


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70