‘Not absolute’

Re “Parents cannot dictate what other parents’ children can read” (Other Views, Nov. 28): Although librarian Deborah Caldwell-Stone concedes it is “the right of every parent to control what their child reads and to select alternative reading or instructional materials for their child,” she denies them the right to have any influence on school policies that restrict what is age appropriate and available to other students.

She makes a radical case for complete and unrestricted access to information and resources in a school or public library “free from any censorship that arises from disapproval of a book’s content or views.” To do otherwise would be a “violation of a minor’s First Amendment rights” as established by the Supreme Court. According to her, “Publicly funded libraries are community institutions that must serve the interests and information needs of every child, every family and every individual in the community. By necessity, their collections must reflect the diversity of thought and values that exist in every community.”

In my opinion this argument is not only extreme but incorrect. What it says is that a library must satisfy the curiosity and sexual fantasies of every minor and adult — not only LGBTQ+ individuals — but also any one interested in pedophilia, necrophilia, sadism, etc. They could demand access to not only books but videos and simulations to satisfy their interests. Where do you draw the line? According to her there is no line. Anything goes.

The First Amendment right to freedom of speech, like all our rights, is not absolute and the Supreme Court has said so.

Jim DellaValle, Yorktown