I’ve never seen or heard of any such state list.
There’s a slight possibility that some states will refuse to buy certain books for schools or might have put these books on a do not purchase for school libraries list, but I can’t imagine any such thing as a general official state list of banned books anywhere in America. The First Amendment still means something.
When I went to library school in the late 1980s, how to deal with would-be censors was a topic that library students got extensive training in. “Intellectual freedom” was the watchword. The ALA’s position is absolutely no censorship of library materials whatever. Hold the line. Don’t give in. For once, I can wholeheartedly endorse an absolutist position. We were schooled extensively in that. “How to prepare before the censor arrives.” (Yes, they use the word “censor” for Podunk PTA book challengers.) “How to meet the censor’s challenge.” That sort of thing.
The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the ALA even produced a movie, The Speaker, about a fictional attempt at American censorship and how the community deals with it. The speaker of the title was a white supremacist, by the way. They deliberately chose an ugly freedom-of-speech issue to underline that freedom of speech is absolutely for everyone, not just nice people. The movie was designed to provoke classroom discussion in library schools. The professor pointed out a racial stereotype in the movie: how come the African-American activist in these little morality plays is always a preacher? Oops. I don’t know if they still show that movie to library students.
The library world takes this issue very seriously. It’s the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom who compiles the Banned and Challenged Books list, wrote the Library Bill of Rights, sponsors Banned Book Week in libraries across the country, distributes informational materials to help librarians fend off censors professionally, and I think even arranges for legal assistance in case a librarian has a tough time of it.
Now they’re taking on the infamous parts of the Patriot Act that affect libraries. Librarians rock. They make me proud to be a librarian myself and glad to be an American.
There is a list of books which cannot be imported because of ridiculous British Libel Laws. Amazon.com will not ship certain books to Britain from its US site when they have not been published here. On my shelves are ‘Spycatcher’- banned in Britain in the eighties, brought back from New York by a friend, Kitty Kelly’s ‘The Royals’ shipped to an address in France and then remailed to me (Amazon wouldn’t let me order it with a British address) and most recently ‘House of Bush, House of Saud’ which I ordered from Amazon before they brought the shutters down on it.
Basically, any book about powerful people or the government that might result in legal action can be very difficult to get in the UK.
Wasn’t Spycatcher nothing to do with libel, but with the Official Secrets Act? (Which I will agree is ridiculous legislation, unlike libel laws.)
…and I just checked my local library, which has both House of Bush… and Spycatcher on its shelves - the latter was un-banned in 1988 and the European Court of Human Rights later judged the ban illegal.
Hous of Bush, House of Saud, on sale at Tesco. Has ‘hard to obtain’ really become synonymous with ‘not sold by Amazon’? As for Kitty Kelley, there’s a good reason the publishers are scared of the libel laws.
I know that Amazon decided not to carry House of Bush, House of Saud on Amazon.co.uk and stopped shipping it to British addresses from Amazon.com- they were scared of the libel laws. I acept that tescos have now decided to publish it in the UK.
Originally Secker and Warburg refused to publish in the UK:
http://www.houseofbush.com/news.php
I bought it then from Amazon before they stopped shipping to the UK.
Since then another publisher has decided to take the risk.
All this does not detract from my argument that British laws, Libel and others including the OSA means that there is always a de facto ‘banned books list’ for the UK.
Are you arguing that there should be a right to publish libellous material?
The English libel laws are renowned for the incredible protection they give to the rich and powerful. What is libellous is decided on by statute and case law and in the case of England these have become repressive and dangerous. Also the English law on injunctions against potentially libellous or confidential is extremely wide and amounts to overwhelming prior restraint.
English libel laws have become a lottery for the rich to play against the interests of freedom of information.
Certainly have libel laws that protect people from false information that does recognizable harm, but the English laws are an afront to a free press and healthy democracy.
And still there are more lenient than the french ones. For instance, you can be condemned for publishing true informations if they’re deemed an invasion of privacy. I might really have a lover, but if you publish the information, I can sue you. Which I think is a good thing.
Free press and healthy democracy don’t necessarilly imply gutter press should have its ways. There are informations that aren’t really informations, or at least informations of no relevance for a functionnal democracy.
I take it you’re an American.
In the UK, as I understand it, the truth is not an absolute defense against a libel charge. If what you wrote is merely ‘embarrassing’ you could still be in real danger. As Pjen said, the libel laws in the UK can be dangerous.
clairobscur, I take it libel laws in France work somewhat the same way as those across the Channel?
Maybe, if you say so. I believed they were stricter, and that the invasion of privacy wasn’t a valid cause for suing in the UK, if the facts published were true. It had been presented to me as the reason why there’s much more gutter press in the UK than in France. But I might be wrong.
And we all know that the English free press doesn’t need any help there anyway. 
Nope.
Really? Have you any examples of this happening?
In the UK, as I understand it, the truth is not an absolute defense against a libel charge. If what you wrote is merely ‘embarrassing’ you could still be in real danger.
No:
http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html
but it is up to the defendant to prove that what was said was true or fair comment. And that is expensive. And that deters people from talking the truth about the powerful.
Soory, lost the ‘quotes’… The first sentence of the above should have been shown as a quote of Derleth’s post.
And of course, English libel law allows you to sue anyone who ‘disseminates’ the information. So it’s not only the writer that has to be prepared to defend evrything to the limit of a very plaintiff-friendly law, but also the publisher, the distribution networks and the corner shop selling it. WH Smugs refused to carry Private Eye for years because of fears of being named as a defendant in every libel case
The English libel law is an affront to a Free Press and to freedom of speech. One day the government will have the balls to replace it with a law that protects the innocent and allows the guilty to be exposed. Robert Maxwell used the laws to their full extent and look how long his crookedness stayed secret!
I assume you are referring to the Red Tops- I believe that a lot of what they do is not in the public interest, but the libel laws do restrain the quality papers from pursuing the truth about powerful crooks, especially those with good lawyers!
the essential principle is that if you are going to make statements in public touching on someone’s honesty or probity then you had better be able to prove it.
Apparently, I wasn’t utterly wrong. I was still mostly wrong, perhaps. But the point remains that libel laws in the UK are tougher than in the US. I have no idea about libel laws in France.