In his piece, Manjoo talked about the digital future of book banning:
Books also have a history of outspoken advocates that have fought for their protection. Banned Book Week, for instance, is an annual event in which libraries, educational institutions and free speech advocates from around the world gather to protect the freedom of information and the printed word.
Manjoo pointed out the danger of digital book deletion, saying:
“The difference between today’s Kindle deletions and yesteryear’s banning is that the earlier prohibitions weren’t perfectly enforceable. At best, publishers that found their books banned by courts could try to recall all books in circulation. In 2007, Cambridge University Press settled a lawsuit with Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi Arabian banker who sued for libel over a book that alleged he’d funded terrorism.
“Cambridge agreed to ask libraries across the world to remove books from their shelves. But the libraries were free to refuse. If bin Mahfouz had sued over a Kindle book, on the other hand, he could ask the court not only to stop sales but also to delete all copies that had already been sold. As Zittrain points out, courts might consider such a request a logical way to enforce a ban — if they can order Dish Network to disable your DVR, they can also tell Amazon or Apple to disable a certain book, movie, or song.
“But that sets up a terrible precedent. Amazon deleted books that were already available in print, but in our paperless future — when all books exist as files on servers — courts would have the power to make works vanish completely.”
