Book Banning

Let me say for the record I am opposed to book banning of any book. I hate the ideas that Ann Coulter spews for example, and I hate the way she has poisoned the well of American Politics. But she has a right to spread her poisonous lies as she sees fit.

Michelle Malkin's latest article takes on the Book Banning side of Sarah Palin. She accuses Liberals of projecting their own evil book banning ways on the innocent Palin, and then lists a number of liberals who have wanted books banned. She brings up "Unfit For Command" but fails to note the key complaint about that book, which was that it was libelous. It presented false information about Kerry designed to defame him. The ideas in the book were not the issue. And the book got out. Plenty of people read it.

Also unifying the people she chooses to accuse is that they are not public officials. They are people asking Regency, for example, not to produce libelous books. Or some sort of Border's employee who urged Border's employees to hide the book (this doesn't seem to have worked).

I don't agree with either of these approaches. But they are not the same as what Sarah Palin. Palin was acting as a representative of the people when she tried to remove books she finds offensive from the bookshelves. That was government censorship as opposed to "freelance" censorship. And while some see "freelance" censorship as a gray area, government censorship shouldn't be.