>Galleycat links to a thoughtfully cranky piece about booksellers who pat themselves on the back for selling “banned” books such as Huckleberry Finn while simultaneously refusing to sell Tintin in the Congo:
Providing unencumbered access to the literary works created under the auspices of free speech (all of ’em — not just the ones we agree with or approve of) is our business. Bookstores shouldn’t have to rally around themselves once a year to proclaim that they hate censorship and the banning of books.
While I agree with the scorn directed at the sometimes unseemly preening that accompanies Banned Books Week, I’ve never thought that booksellers should have to stock anything they didn’t want to. What I would really, really, like to know is how many of the 546 challenges recorded by the OIF in 2006 resulted in restrictions or banning, a hardly-irrelevant statistic that seems absent from ALA’s press materials. “Banned Books Week” is certainly a catchy slogan, but are they selling sizzle or steak?