> It is one thing for libraries and bookstores to decide not to offer for borrowing or sale things that they disagree with.
Private libraries can do whatever they like. Public ones should be required to carry even the most offensive book.
Private libraries can do whatever they like. Public ones should be required to carry even the most offensive book.
Given that, libraries shouldn't be required to carry every book, they should optimize their collections for what their local users want to read. If it turns out that old out of print childrens' books aren't popular, then why should they carry them?
Libraries come and go, and should be treated as temporary collections (fair enough re space constraints). To attempt to erase history (“cancel it”?) is to ignore its teachings.
Edit: In retrospect, this comment reads like I'm dismissing the parent or grandparents' concern, but really I'm just saying that you can definitely buy old stock that's been taken off shelves.
The precedent of books being illegal has already been set in many countries. Now all that is missing is the political will to have them banned (and at the rate things are deteriorating, I expect this will come sooner rather than later).
And beyond that, I don't think you mean what you generally say here, that libraries should have books that are considered controversial by elites. I can think of plenty of books that are controversial to leftist elites and plenty of books that are controversial to right wing elites.
they can surely stop publishing additional copies, but existing copies should not be burned.
were their local readers asked if these books were offensive? Or was this pushed over them?