A San Francisco bookstore called the Booksmith (I think it’s unrelated to the old Paperback Booksmith chain) has stopped selling J. K. Rowling’s books because of the causes she supports. It’s unclear whether they’ll decline orders for the books or have just stopped stocking them. It won’t surprise anyone that the controversy has gotten ugly.
Booksmith has a perfect right to make this choice. In response to accusations of “banning,” co-owner Camden Avery has said, “It’s false pearl-clutching and a misapprehension of what censorship is. We’re exercising our First Amendment right to operate a private business in line with our values.” That’s 100% right, and it’s how capitalism works. Booksmith is not a government-owned library.
However, a more difficult question is whether their action is in line with liberal values. When I go to a bookstore, I generally expect I can buy any book that’s on the market, regardless of the owners’ opinion of it. The main exception is specialty bookstores. If I go to a science-fiction bookstore, I don’t necessarily expect I can order a cookbook there, unless its title is To Serve Man. The site describes the owners as “a group of queer booklovers,” so maybe they fall under that category. However, it’s not the content of Rowling’s books they object to, but what she may do with the income from them.
The store has also stopped carrying books by Neil Gaiman, who has been accused of rape and human trafficking, though as far as I know there have been no criminal charges or court judgments against him. Again, the issue isn’t the content but the author.
If the practice became widespread, it could make it hard for people to be fully informed. It’s very likely some stores won’t sell books by Richard Dawkins or Thomas Paine. If large sellers followed these stores’ example, it would be especially troublesome. A few years ago, some Amazon employees demanded the company stop selling some books. That, too, would be their First Amendment right to operate a private business in line with their values. It would, at the same time, go against the principle of openly exchanging ideas.
Freedom from governmental interference is an important part of the liberal ideal, but it isn’t the whole of it. Private entities, too, should prefer open dialogue to keeping the opposition from being heard. Making decisions based on the author’s other activities is a dangerous path. If I want to buy a book by Donald Trump, Mao Zedong, or Charlie Chaplin, I don’t want the store questioning my choice.
Stores have options short of refusing to sell a book. They can put their favorite books on conspicuous display and bury others on the shelves or not keep them in stock. They have to do this, since their space is finite. But deciding which authors are fit to sell is a dangerous path.