I know I’m behind on this one, but it’s a story that seemed to slip through the cracks the past few days.
The federal Government Printing Office has ordered libraries across the country to destroy five US Department of Justice pamphlets that provide how-to instructions on prosecuting asset forfeiture cases, invoking a rarely-used authority to order the removal of items the government routinely sends to hundreds of libraries.
The pamphlets are among the material the office sends each year to about 1,300 depository libraries. Those facilities, at least two in each congressional district, are designated by Congress to receive and make available copies of virtually all documents the federal government publishes.
Isn’t this a little weird? The information in these pamphlets couldn’t be that bad; the federal government published and distributed the information to libraries in the first place.
A spokesperson for the American Library Association said there have only been 20 to 30 instances since the middle of the 19th century in which the government will order libraries to destroy public documents, usually because information was proven inaccurate and the government didn’t want to mislead people.
That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
[Bernard A. Margolis, president of the Boston Public Library] said the e-mail order [from the Department of Justice] to destroy the pamphlets “came out of the blue” Thursday. He said much, if not all, of the materials — such as statutes on asset forfeiture — are “the law of the land” readily available online and in law books.
Margolis said the pamphlets will remain available at the Boston Public Library while he prepares a challenge to the directive.
Not only is this information simply about the law, it’s also been available in public libraries in pamphlet form for four years.
“We are going to push the Department of Justice on this,” said [Patrice McDermott, the ALA’s deputy director of governmental affairs]. “This material is already out there. Some of these documents are merely compilations of federal statutes. You can find this stuff in law offices and law libraries across the country. We just don’t know the rationale for this.”
Maybe there’s a rational explanation for the decision, but it’s odd that the DoJ would make such an announcement without expanding on why it’s necessary.
It also leads me to wonder what kind of system is in place for regulating these kinds of “orders.” Can the Justice Department make unilateral decisions whenever it wants to about forcing libraries to destroy public documents? If so, maybe this is something that should be corrected.