Alan Inouye: How Will We Ever Resolve the Library Digital Content Problem?

Alan Inouye, ALA’s Senior Director of Public Policy & Government Relations (and soon retiring—good luck, Alan, and we’ll miss your wisdom and advocacy!) has published an article in the current issue of Maine Policy Review asking this question. The issue has thoughtful articles on librarianship and climate change, “social work creep,” intellectual freedom and managing print collections and is well worth a look, but this particular article is most central for RF concerns.

Here is the abstract:

Library access to digital content is characterized by a big dose of exasperation. Although digital content provides some remarkable benefits, the shift of the access rubric from copyright to licenses provided many inferior provisions for libraries. This dilemma spans library type, and features the digital book issue with public libraries in the 2010s to the present. In the past decades, the library community has advocated for change via direct engagement with the industry, state legislation, federal policy and media campaigns. Overall, these efforts have been modestly effective at best. Fundamental reconsideration of the path forward is needed. The first step on that path is a thoughtful assessment of the needs and opportunities for digital content in libraries, and the resulting possible policy directions.

One might, alas, go as far as to say efforts have been a failure. We have made modest increases in the variety of licenses; more publishers provide offerings than in 2010, including many smaller or medium-sized and Indie publishers where solid deals on some excellent content provide solid choices. Not every Big 5 (then Big 6) publishers was offering ebooks in 2010, but those that did offered “perpetual access” at hardcover prices. With the disappearance of that option and the growth of metered access at inflated (to put it mildly) costs, the years since then (especially 2018/9) read as a history of public libraries taking it on the chin. School and academic libraries fare no better.

So, is it time for “a thoughtful assessment of the needs and opportunities for digital content in libraries, and the resulting possible policy directions”? Phrased this way, as the article does, perhaps:

Most importantly, we must get beyond facile and simplistic slogans such as “we want lower prices.” Indeed, we do, but narrowly focusing on price is not a viable strategy. We must avoid knee-jerk reactions, and we must not expect easy wins, since there are no such things. First, we must focus on what libraries will need and want to serve their communities. Then we must consider, what is obtainable in the political and business realms. There is no easy answer or shortcut. . . . The library community has much remedial work to do.

We do have much remedial work to do. But does “what is obtainable in the political and business realms” mean giving up the quest for a robust and sustainable digital collection—which the public certainly indicates they want through their library use patterns, and which is increasingly vital for preserving access? I’m not sure how and where this remedial work will be done. We haven’t been so very good at developing a unified policy across libraries. Can we do better? No matter what, any discussion needs to needs to take place with the understanding that we aren’t going to get anything without a fight. Haven’t at least the big publishers shown they won’t ever bend, even as other publishers have shown it is possible to run a business without digital terms so utterly different and worse than print sales? Is the fight worth it? Do we stand a chance? Prospects at the federal level are grim, even more so now with the incoming administration so obviously privileging corporations over the public weal. Perhaps digital, especially streaming, will spell the end of libraries as the gatherer of public funds to benefit all in a way that few can achieve individually. The big publishers have shown they are perfectly willing in digital to leave libraries out, preferring many individual sales over collective sharing. The effort is not just about digital. It’s about libraries fulfilling their basic mission of supporting the public by pooling resources for the good of all, no matter what the format. If we don’t fight for that as the end goal, then we might as well throw in the towel now and resign ourselves to libraries being supplanted, at least in digital. With the many forces fighting against libraries and many other agencies because they despise government action and want everything privatized, is this a fight we can ignore?

A Look at Preservation (or the likely lack thereof) in a Digital Age

Tony Ageh, Michael Bayler, Chris Durlacher and Julian Turner have taken a detailed look at the difficulties library face in preservation under currently prevailing conditions. RF has often lamented that books see to lose their importance for many publishers after they no long seem to have commercial value, and yet they fight to prevent digital sharing and even library archiving of those same works. It’s well worth a look:

“Digital-only e-books and e-journals will be lost unless publishers, research libraries, and dark archives collaborate to ensure their long-term preservation. 

Preservation of Knowledge in the Digital Age is a new report was commissioned by Arcadia from Ageh Consulting and co-authored by . It involved interviews with 43 key figures and a survey of librarians from a range of institutions. It highlights that even when libraries’ licences for e-books allow for copies to be archived, few possess the capability and resources necessary for systematic digital preservation. Moreover, although publishers’ agreements with so-called ‘dark archives’ should ensure that copies survive, this is rarely applied to ebooks and – for both books and journals – the principle that ‘lots of copies keeps stuff safe’ may be being breached in practice.

You can download the full report here.”

Sundry News: IA on 78 rpms and Florida Lawsuits

Chris Freeland with the Internet Archive has announced that “More than 750 musicians have signed an open letter demanding that major recording labels drop their lawsuit against the Internet Archive for preserving 78rpm recordings.”

Fight for the Future is sharing this open letter, in which musicians oppose the music publishers in the lawsuit, saying “We don’t believe that the Internet Archive should be destroyed in our name.” They further call upon “record labels, streaming platforms, ticketing outlets, and venues to immediately align on the following goals”:

• Protect our diverse music legacy

• Invest in living, working musicians–not back catalogs or monopolies

• Make streaming services pay fair compensation

In the name of corporate profit—and certainly not for protecting musicians, most of them making less than peanuts from streaming—the publishers are intent on unbalancing copyright. They have no interest in releasing these works. “‘Copyright law in the United States is intended to promote the progress of science and useful arts’, nonsense,” one can all but hear them saying, “we’d rather millions of recordings be lost to time than preserved, even though the IA project isn’t costing us revenue, just to make sure our money is always protected.” Roll over, Ebeneezer Scrooge. Christmas has a new and bigger holiday miser.

Douglas Soule of the Tallahassee Democrat reports “Citing tax dollars spent, judge urges Florida school district to settle book ban lawsuit.” Judge T. Kent Wetherell II (a Trump appointee, in case anyone thinks this is some liberal plot) recommends the Escambia School Board settle a suit brought by PenAmerica, Penguin Random House, and some brave parents because it “should be particularly important to (the school board) because it is spending taxpayer money to defend this suit and it could end up having to pay all or part of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees on top of its own attorneys’ fees if Plaintiffs prevail in this case.” They have also spent lots of public money on a separate suite involving “And Tango Makes Three.” If they lose, the school board could be out over a million dollars in attorney and court costs. But are they being reasonable? Of course not. They argue “Removing books is "government speech," meaning it's unrestricted by the First Amendment.” The judge rightly scoffs at that: "The Court simply fails to see how any reasonable person would view the contents of the school library (or any library for that matter) as the government’s endorsement of the views expressed in the books on the library’s shelves.” One wonders just how many of the county’s residents wants to see that much money fly away rather than being spent in the schools. Perhaps a radical few. Maybe those few should volunteer to pay the costs themselves. As for the school board, hey, go sit in an elementary school classroom. Maybe you’ll learn the concept of subtracting $1 million from your budget.

RF sometimes takes shots at PRH for their digital licensing costs. In this holiday season, we are glad to be able to say something nice about you, PRH.

Happy holidays to all who work for a better library digital content experience and for all who fight for digital preservation and the freedom to read freely. And lumps of coal to all who ban legitimate and important works and to those who would rather see works die even if preservation is not eating into corporate profits.

2024 Cheers n Jeers

Updated—oh, we’re not done.

The end of the year is upon us, and that means only one thing. Well, it means many things, of course, but only one for ReadersFirst. It’s time for our annual Cheers n Jeers, where good things that have happened in library digital content land are celebrated and troubling things are called out with heaping helpings of snark.

Update:

Thanks to my RF Working Group colleague Lisa, who adds the following:

[CHEERS to Audible for adding (still more) content to libraries through Palace. Your original content is greatly appreciated and attracts customers who know your name and the quality of your work to the library digital content experience. May your authors thrive! We’ll help.

While we’re talking Palace, CHHERS to our RF partners in Canada. Vancouver and Edmonton for have added this new e-book platform for library customers in their cities. Amazon, Audible, new collection models, tens of thousands of free quality titles, at the fingertips—cheers, indeed.

CHEERS to the Internet Archive (IA) for rebuilding after multiple cyber attacks (and, of course, JEERS to the hackers. You want to stop access to the Wayback Machine and so many great resources? You’re no heroes. May your names and actions be buried by history—oh, wait the IA is making sure your actions aren’t. ).

Thanks, Lisa!

While we’re talking IA, CHEERS for a brave stand on CDL. You were up against billions in corporate money and digital copyright laws unbalanced in favor of those who seek only profit at the expense of the preservation of the intellectual record and against the “Progress of Science and useful Arts.” What about the hundreds of thousands of books that don’t have a current digital license and that will be ignored or forgotten because some corporate type thinks those works have no value but best to hold onto them just in case? IA, long may you thrive and keep those works available as long as you can.

Maybe we need some way to find reclaim them and find commercial value for authors—oh, wait, darn it, I forget HUGE CHEERS for Paul Crosby (of Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University) and Tessa Barrington, Airlie Lawson, and Rebecca Giblin (of Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne) for Untapped Potential. Sorry, Rebecca, “il miglior fabbro” (gender is wrong, but that’s the original quote, sorry again.)

Now back to our orginal post.]

In what may be called (once again, alas) the year of the book ban, CHEERS with bells on for all who fight everywhere for the freedom to read. Librarians, organizations, publishers, writers, attorneys, and especially caring parents and brave young readers, your courage is laudable and inspiring. In library digital land, especial thanks go the five libraries in Books Unbanned and their generous supporters who make that initiative possible: Brooklyn, Boston, LA County, San Diego, and Seattle. CHEERS, too, to the DPLA (and Lyrasis) for The Banned Book Club. Through the power of library digital books, young people all over the country have access to challenged titles, even in areas where libraries are underfunded or even non-existent, and wherever the blinkered bluenose censor holds sway to deny reading based on ideology.

A special CHEER is due to Dr Tasslyn Magnusson with PEN America and EveryLibrary for tremendous work documenting challenges and bans. There is unfortunately ever so much to track; this information allows ever so many to know the threat and to fight back against those benighted small minds who want to tell everyone else what they can’t read.

An equally loud JEER for the groups and states pushing their narrow-minded, undemocratic, and anti-American banning agenda. Since when does “freedom” consist of taking away freedom from everyone else? The loudest of JEERS for the 18 states— Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia—filing amicus briefs in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reduce libraries to the choked mouthpieces for local governments, taking selection away from library professionals who desire to serve ALL. You want to support a county that just coincidentally “weeded” Isabelle Wilkerson’s magisterial Caste and books on the KKK and on Rosa Parks? Oh well, at least you’ve exploded the lie that the censors are after “pornography.” You are sentenced in absentia to read the United States Constitution and write a 500 word essay on how it refutes every page of Project 2025. No using generative AI to help!

Speaking of AI, JEERS to Midwest Tapes’ HOOPLA for importing “a plethora of irrelevant, seemingly AI-generated, and even pirated materials that often differ greatly from the choices that librarians make for their communities.” With people attacking library collections, and libraries themselves, in unprecedented ways, our reputation for providing quality collections must be even more jealously guarded then ever before. A bunch of dreck in a popular service doesn’t help. Some of the selections have all the authority of a debunked lie on X. We shouldn’t have to curate your collection for you. Stop the slop. OverDrive, RF hears reports that you aren’t labelling titles in your catalog as A.I. “created,” thus creating more work for selection librarians to sort out the chaff. No jeers for you now, but fix it.

CHEERS to the publishers who are experimenting with new models for library ebook acquisition, especially those that are working with DPLA and IPG to offer ownership rather than licensing of content. Between high demand and limited budget increases, as recently documented again by Library Futures’ Jennie Rose Halperin and Laura Crossett, libraries are increasingly finding ebooks unsustainable, our collections circumscribed by constant re-licensing and high prices. CHEERS to the many publishers, often medium or even small in size, that offer reasonable costs to libraries on good terms. This content, often high in quality, is perhaps our best current hope for developing collections anything like the richness we offer in print. While we are about it, let’s give two cheers for one of the Big 5, Penguin Random House, for offering a perpetual as well as a metered option for audiobooks. Even that helps. Want the full three cheers, PRH? How about that option in ebooks?

Speaking of unsustainable, continued JEERS with a raspberry on the side to the BIG 5 for your digital prices for libraries. For hundreds on years, libraries have paid fair prices for millions of copies in print, and you’ve all done fine. Now suddenly our limited digital acquisitions are going to cannibalize your profits and drive you into bankruptcy, impoverishing your authors? And you have the crust to blame us for author earnings? It ain’t us. Where is all that money going? JEERS to you, too, for unleashing your myrmidons, the AAP, to get a small number of legislators to use procedural tricks to thwart the people’s will to pass fair ebook laws in various states. The AAP at least is simply doing its job. Where is their money coming from?

Let’s end with a CHEER, for the states that will once again introduce legislation using consumer protection and procurement laws to get fair (print equivalent) ebook terms. Even states that convince legislators to conduct an investigation and ask pointed questions of large publishers (and thanks again to the many other publishers that do offer fair terms to libraries) can help. We can’t expect federal legislation under the incoming administration. It isn’t, however, up to you alone. Librarians, put the limited money into titles that offer some reasonable “Bang for the book.” Let’s say it with our wallets. If we keep paying outrageous rates for content that the publishers price thinking we’ll just keep shoveling public money into the corporate trough, we’ll can’t blame them for our woes.

Happy holidays to all in a time that will be a challenge for libraries and their values. CHEERS for and to all in libraries who meet that challenge: staff, trustees, friends, and readers. There will be setbacks. We will prevail. As the poet says, “If winter comes, can spring be far behind?”

From the IA: Vanishing Culture: A Report on Our Fragile Cultural Record

As if the often ruinous big publisher prices and unfavorable license terms weren’t enough to prevent libraries from building and maintaining a deep and sustainable digital collection, the move to streaming—and often deliberately excluding libraries from access—is also becoming an issue.

Luca Messarra (of Stanford University) and Chris Freeland and Juliya Ziskina (of the Internet Archive) have released a report on this issue. It’s worth a read.

“In today’s digital landscape, corporate interests, shifting distribution models, and malicious cyber attacks are threatening public access to our shared cultural history.

• The rise of streaming platforms and temporary licensing agreements means that sound recordings, books, films, and other cultural artifacts that used to be owned in physical form, are now at risk—in digital form—of disappearing from public view without ever being archived.

• Cyber attacks, like those against the Internet Archive, British Library, Seattle Public Library, Toronto Public Library and Calgary Public Library, are a new threat to digital culture, disrupting the infrastructure that secures our digital heritage and impeding access to information at community scale.

When digital materials are vulnerable to sudden removal—whether by design or by attack—our collective memory is compromised, and the public’s ability to access its own history is at risk. 

Vanishing Culture: A Report on Our Fragile Cultural Record (download) aims to raise awareness of these growing issues. The report details recent instances of cultural loss, highlights the underlying causes, and emphasizes the critical role that public-serving libraries and archives must play in preserving these materials for future generations. By empowering libraries and archives legally, culturally, and financially, we can safeguard the public’s ability to maintain access to our cultural history and our digital future.”

Current laws unbalance copyright to the advantage of rights holders and to the detriment of “the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” not to mention to the detriment of the sharing and preservation of the intellectual record. Knowing the details of the problem is important for working for change. Give it a read.

What Banned Book Would You Highlight and Yay, NJ

DPLA invites submission for Banned Books to which you’d like to bring special attention. These titles might be a little lesser known than the most frequently banned ones, but very much worthy of attention. You can submit selections here.

In other news, the Banned Books Club is now open to anyone who wishes to see it, rather than just being limited to areas where books have been banned. Yes, librarians can use digital to fight banning all over the county. Thanks, DPLA!

Here’s what you’ll see:

Submit Your "Banned Book of the Week"!

DPLA is excited to invite you to participate in our "Banned Book of the Week" social media series highlighting books under threat of censorship.

In July 2023, the Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) launched The Banned Book Club, in partnership with Lyrasis and The Palace Project, to ensure all readers have access to the books they want to read. Our #BannedBookClub social media series, which we kicked off earlier this year, shares banned titles on DPLA’s Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter feeds.

Lead curator Jill Egan, Miriam Tulio, and other members of DPLA's Curation Corps have helped select previously featured titles.

Now, we're inviting you to share your favorite banned books with us, so we can share them with others!

Please fill out this form to submit a Banned Book for DPLA and our partners to lift up in a future "Banned Book of the Week" post. DPLA and the Curation Corps will review all submissions and let you know when your selection will be shared via DPLA's social media channels. 

We hope you’ll reshare these posts on your own feeds, and those of your organizations, to spread even awareness about The Banned Book Club and our collective commitment to free access to all books!

In related news, congratulations to the legislators, librarians, and residents of New Jersey. A bill has now become law to protect librarians and prevent book banning. Great work, and welcome to the growing club of states that are ensuring that “free people read freely.”

Interesting Law Article on Library Ebooks

Thanks to Jeremy Johannessen of COSLA for sharing an interesting article.

I caution up front that it is a VERY deep dive (38 pages); however, if you’d like a legal perspective on state efforts to promote a fair library ebook market, it is worth a read.

https://www.aallnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/LLJ_116n3.pdf#:~:text=State%20Strategies%20for%20Fair%20E-Book%20Licensing:%20Lessons%20from

There are some minor errors. For example, we in libraries now do have access to Audible titles through Palace. 

The article ignores some very capable recent advocacy efforts by librarians with this statement, though on the whole it is true:  “Finally, librarians need additional training on how to be better advocates for libraries against aggressive, seasoned copyright attorneys.”

We often see a majority of legislators persuaded by library talking points. Maryland, for example, did not have a single negative vote against its legislation. We need to learn better to watch for and fight against procedural tricks by a minority of legislators that have derailed some bills..

I take some issue with the first half of the following statement (we did have legal advice in Maryland, and the authors themselves say there were mistakes in the Maryland judge’s reading of the laws), but the second half of the statement is certainly true:  “Maryland made mistakes in how it drafted its statute and defended the subsequent litigation brought by publishers, but publishers marshal more formidable resources than public libraries, including regulatory capture in the U.S. Copyright Office.”

Yes, we are up against billions of $$, some of which has apparently been put in to the coffers of those who wish to derail state efforts to create a more fair market for libraries.

 While banning efforts and our fight against them are and should be our main effort, fair ebook prices remain a big issue.  I hope that Maryland will once again join the other state efforts someday. But if even one state were to pass the revised language, it might at least prompt federal action.

But enough nit-picking, The article is an excellent review with some good suggestions. It’s conclusion is powerful:

Libraries are the bedrock of a free and educated society. Despite providing publishers with millions of dollars in annual revenue, incalculable amounts of free publicity, and developing their customer base of readers, libraries are punished by publishers with unfair and punitive terms for purchasing and licensing digital books and audiobooks.

It is clear from the current multitude of state legislation that state legislators care about helping libraries. State legislatures should look to the Library Futures model statute to create a statute that creates fairer contract language. The model statute’s improved language will pass legal scrutiny where Maryland’s statute failed. Libraries should also consider leveraging price-gouging statutes and AG multistate litigation to counter publisher abuses. Finally, librarians need additional training on how to be better advocates for libraries against aggressive, seasoned copyright attorneys. A successful legislative and litigation strategy will allow libraries to continue to thrive and fulfill their missions in helping all to access knowledge and learning.

Let’s work to make it so.

Viva, CDL! Thanks, BLC

Marc Hoffeditz of Boston Library Consortium (BLC) has shared very interesting news: the BLC “is pleased to announce the release of a new report, ReShare CDL: Software & Workflows for Consortial CDL for ILL. This project was made possible in part by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (LG-254935-OLS-23) and the Davis Educational Foundation. The report provides an overview of BLC and Project ReShare’s engagement with CDL for ILL to date.”

Despite the recent legal setback for the Internet Archive in what is arguably a flawed ruling, librarians continue to explore Controlled Digital Lending of materials.

The report introduces a system for scalably sharing interlibrary loan books through CDL:

“Instead of showing the market’s ability to rise to challenges and build solutions to meet emerging needs, CDL reveals that the market largely lacks this capability, especially when it comes to developing technology solutions attainable for most libraries.” Excerpted from an article in The Scholarly Kitchen, this bold statement articulated the position in which many libraries and consortia found themselves when searching for a plausible and scalable solution to support the practice of controlled digital lending (CDL). Seizing on this gap in the technology landscape, Boston Library Consortium (BLC) and Index Data laid the groundwork for the development and eventual release of ReShare CDL, a modern solution to facilitate and broker consortial CDL workflows and realize what the existing marketplace failed to do. While BLC has deferred implementation in the immediate future, we were compelled to share this report for others to learn about CDL and make informed decisions about potential adoptions. Capturing the great amount of work and information amassed over the past several years, this report details:

• A brief history of BLC’s engagement with CDL to date

• An introduction to the ReShare CDL interface and functionality

• Adaptable workflows to execute consortial CDL requests

• Future development directions for ReShare CDL, Project ReShare, and BLC”

The report is careful to say that it intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice about CDL. Still, the prospect of “a collaborative initiative designed to create an open, community-owned and governed resource sharing platform for libraries” is intriguing. Some publishers seem to think that any digital sharing can only be done via licensing. Many works aren’t and never will be digitized for licensing, including nearly all titles published before about 1990. Under those conditions, libraries will be unable to do some of their most important work—the preservation and sharing of the cultural record—without putting increasingly rare and fragile print copies at risk. Digital as has unbalanced copyright, giving too much to rights holders and too little attention to the need to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” We in libraries must continue to advocate for change. A system for sharing via CDL is an important step towards a better future for researchers and readers.

"Untapped Potential": An Important Study of Library Digital Lending

Paul Crosby (of Macquarie Business School, Macquarie University) and Tessa Barrington, Airlie Lawson, and Rebecca Giblin (of Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne) have released an important study of library digital lending, Untapped Potential: Results from the Australian Literary Heritage Project.

The group established “an independent publishing imprint, Untapped, to re-publish out of print but culturally important titles. As well as rescuing 161 lost books, the research team used the data generated throughout the process to help answer important research questions that couldn’t be answered otherwise.”

They summarize as follows:

1. We found no evidence that library lending of Untapped’s ebooks ‘cannibalised’ sales - and indeed some evidence that it increased sales for certain books.

2. There was substantial demand from the public to borrow and buy the Untapped titles as ebooks.

3. Library promotional activities can strongly influence the books borrowed by readers.

4. Re-publication of these previously out of print titles opened up new streams of income for authors.

5. Participating authors and heirs also enjoyed substantial noneconomic benefits from the project.

6. Authors faced a wide range of obstacles in reclaiming their rights to out of print titles, adding support to the case for minimum baseline rights to better protect their interests.

7. Library control of e-lending infrastructure could improve access to data and help direct more money to authors and publishers.

We in libraries hypothesize that our digital lending, and indeed all our lending, helps support a heathy reading ecosystem and benefits authors and publishers. The publishers know it. Why else do they sponsor and attend library conferences so assiduously? We have some evidence for our hypothesis. This study adds to that evidence nicely.

While it would be a small leap from this study to suggest a corollary, doesn’t it seem likely that more favorable digital content terms on existing titles from certain publishers, far from “cannibalizing” sales, would lead to more sales to the public and not just to libraries? It certainly seems to work that way with print. Perhaps people don’t want to “own” ebooks they way they do print books. It would be interesting if a Big 5 publisher at least gave it a try.

I know, I know dream on, librarian. Fat chance, hunh?

The Defense Arguments in Llano Case Are A Threat To Libraries

This case isn’t specifically about library digital content (although the county library did lose its OverDrive account, later replaced by another vendor).

It goes to the very heart of our work, however: will libraries be able to control all their collections, print and digital, or will local (or state) government be able to control what are in our collections, infringing our most cherished values?

The hearing was Wednesday.  You can listen to it  (an hour and ten minutes), if you want: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/23/23-50224_9-24-2024.mp3

A quick and greatly simplified summary:

 The attorney defending the county and Florida’s solicitor general (on behalf of 17 states) argue that a 1995 First Amendment decision by this same court should be overturned. That decision said a school board removing a book based on its subject mater was a violation of the Constitution.

 They argue that libraries are funded by the government, that library collections should therefore be considered “government speech,” that the government is not required to be viewpoint neutral, and therefore that the funding agency can control the collection without violating the First Amendment. They further argue that librarians are government agents and cannot make collection decisions without the “government” being allowed to decide what to choose and not to choose.

It seems a considerable leap from saying librarians should be allowed to make decisions to say that, for example, a county government could remove books from a library that the librarians wish to keep. It is, however, a leap that the defense is not only willing but eager to make.

The plaintiffs attorneys argue that libraries are public institutions, that the First Amendment is applicable in them, and that government entities cannot suppress books because of objections to their subject matter.

The argument that library collections are government speech has been shot down in many recent cases in other circuit courts. It is, again, a threat to basic library values. Even the county’s attorney conceded that his argument could lead to libraries that reflect only the limited views of one political party. I live in Maryland, where we are fortunate that our laws wisely say that libraries are to be “established free from political influence.”  The 5th Circuit has some judges who seem happy to support the government speech argument and to disagree with the courts upholding the freedom to read. Their ruling could send this case to the Supreme Court.  An adverse ruling there could be a wedge nationally to let local officials remove any books they don’t like, disadvantaging everyone who would like to explore ideas freely in a pluralistic society.

For a deeper exploration, please see  https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/96015-on-appeal-llano-county-seeks-book-ban-ruling-that-would-upend-public-libraries.html

The last two paragraphs of this piece are worth consideration: 

EveryLibrary founder John Chrastka told PW that if the court buys the government speech argument, it would be as big as overturning Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court case that sets forth a test for what constitutes obscenity.

"Allowing the Government Speech Doctrine to creep into the management of public libraries will upend everything that a public library is supposed to be," EveryLibrary reps said in a statement on the oral argument. "The outcome of this case will set a crucial precedent for the role of libraries in our democratic society, and it must reaffirm that libraries exist to serve the public’s right to access diverse, lawful ideas—not to promote government-sanctioned ideologies." 

No matter what your political views, if you care about libraries as institutions supporting all in their communities, find a way to voice your support. Speak up locally. Support groups that fight for the freedom to read. If nothing else, sign the EveryLibrary petition. This is about libraries, but even more. It is about freedom. Not the false freedom promoted by groups like the intellectually bankrupt Moms for Liberty, for whom freedom consists of denying freedoms to everyone else. The freedom to read all perspectives to be exposed to ideas and culture without having to pull out a credit card to buy things rather than experiencing them through that great and effective steward of our joint funding, the public library.