Archived decisions

Hampshire County Council

 

Executive Member - Recreation and Heritage Item 4

 

11 March 2008

 

Controversial Material in Public Libraries - MLA Consultation

Report of the Director of Recreation and Heritage

 

Contact: Stephen Edwards tel: 826683 e-mail: [email protected]

 

1. Summary

 

1.1 The following decision is sought: That the Executive Member for Recreation & Heritage approve the following recommendations:

    i) That the Library Stock Policy be amended in the light of the Musuems, Libraries and Archives Council's guidelines on controversial material in public libraries to read:

    Some published material will cause offence to some members of the public because of its religious, political or moral line, or because it contains spurious alternative or controversial knowledge, or because it is designed by the author/artist deliberately to shock. All material which is legally available may legitimately be considered for purchase. Stock must be selected for the positive reason that it can be useful and/or interesting to some of the public, rather than rejected for the negative reason that it may cause complaint. However, our intention is not to knowingly provide publications or information which is intended to provide practical information for terrorists and for terrorist acts nor to knowingly provide information which is intended to stir up racial hatred.

    ii) That the managed access to controversial material envisaged in the draft proposals be rejected on the grounds that they would be of little practical use and would decrease the standard of service provided to all the people of Hampshire

    iii) That Hampshire should take part in the consultation on the MLA draft guidelines and pass on its views on stock policy and managed access.

2. Reason

 

2.1 The principles behind Hampshire's stock policy fully support the corporate aims for Hampshire safer and more secure for all, maximising well-being and enhancing our quality of place. We do not want to censor or self censor or impede the free flow of ideas and information while we do want to foster understanding of different cultures, religions and differing political points of view. However, we do need to act responsibly and within the law.

3. Other Options Considered and Rejected.

 

    1) Accepting the MLA draft guidance in full

    2) Not responding to the MLA consultation

 

4. Conflicts of interest declared by the decision maker or other Executive Member consulted.

 

    None.

   

5. Dispensation by the Standards Committee

 

    Not applicable.

  

6. Reasons for the matter being dealt with if urgent.

 

    Not applicable.

   

Approved by: Date:

 

 

 

........................................... ...................................

Councillor Mrs. M. Snaith