I read the article and comments just this morning. I guess I haven't been switched on to catch it early. It was my hope to leave this comment on the Guardian site, but comments are closed. I agree with your analysis that it is a form of censorship. Admittedly it doesn't rise to the level of book burning, but if your average patron can't find his desired selection in a bookstore, they are unlikely to look through numerous sections on the chance it is refiled. Of course, there is always Amazon.com, but it still causes problems. One of these is the chance of a casual browswer being accidentally exposed to, and thus interested in, a title they happen upon is almost zero.

I do a lot of my shopping in book stores. It is usually after sitting in a coffee shop using the wifi, working, researching, etc. Browsing books is a form of relaxation, and I buy hundreds that I happen across in the aisles When I know what I want, I buy it online usually, or if I am engaged in a mass book buy.

What no one seems to mention is what this vandalism (minor though it may be) does to an as yet uncredited victim: the bookstore. I can definitively state this because (other than being a lifelong serious bookstore customer and librarian assistant working my way through high school) I have a son who works at a Borders in the UK to make his own way through university.

It is an usurpation of the bookstore's private property rights to recategorize books. The vandals have no right disturbing the property of others, especially if they have no interest in buying the items. Furthermore, the aim of this activity is to make it harder for others to find or buy the product, which costs the bookstore money. Finally the bookstore has to pay someone to hunt down these books and re-categorize them. The loss of the employee time in doing this likely will eat up the profits in selling said books, so it may well stop ordering those problem books (leading to censorship accomplished).

We should all respect other people's rights to their opinion, even if the opinion is considered stupid. As importantly, if not more so, we absolutely must respect private property rights (and that includes the right to categorize, file, or display said property as desired) otherwise we lose one of the major underpinnings of civil society.

On a personal note, I have a huge, multi-thousand volume home library. One thing that bothers me greatly is when my kids get a book from one shelf (it is well organized) and then just stick it anywhere handy when done. It means I can spend hours looking for a book, and might not find it until it is time to move and we recatalogue all of the books to see what to keep and what to give away. Make no mistake, moving books in a library is the same as burying treasure, and sometimes it is very difficult to find them again (especially in a bookstore where you are paying your employees to look, and you have 100,000 or more books on the shelves to look through).

It is interesting to note that the Darwinists are the ones acting like fanatics in this issue, who can't stand an opposing view, reasoned debate, and are engaging in vandalism and de-facto censorship to "win" the debates they often refuse to have. I am a non-religious non-Darwinian. I once believed in it (and I do consider believe to be the right word, not logic), but over the years, scientifically, I have looked at the evidence and find the theory very wanting. It doesn't make me a religious nut, or a fundamentalist. I don't have that religious faith. I would just prefer not to believe in something with massive holes and theory faults that demonstrate it is unlikely to be true. If this puts me a step closer to believing in the actions of a Supreme Architect of the Universe, or Ancient Astronaut theory, so be it. Unlike most Darwinists, I prefer to follow the actual evidence that exists, and not believe that some second coming or missing link will validate my faith in a godless theory because I am emotionally invested in it and don't want to come clean, admitting it is probably wrong.

For more reading about how mainstream science gets even civilizational origins and development wrong, head over to ancientengineers.com for a basic (but growing in complexity) website that also lists a number of books regarding such subjects.

I read the article and comments just this morning. I guess I haven't been switched on to catch it early. It was my hope to leave this comment on the Guardian site, but comments are closed. I agree with your analysis that it is a form of censorship. Admittedly it doesn't rise to the level of book burning, but if your average patron can't find his desired selection in a bookstore, they are unlikely to look through numerous sections on the chance it is refiled. Of course, there is always Amazon.com, but it still causes problems. One of these is the chance of a casual browswer being accidentally exposed to, and thus interested in, a title they happen upon is almost zero.

I do a lot of my shopping in book stores. It is usually after sitting in a coffee shop using the wifi, working, researching, etc. Browsing books is a form of relaxation, and I buy hundreds that I happen across in the aisles When I know what I want, I buy it online usually, or if I am engaged in a mass book buy.

What no one seems to mention is what this vandalism (minor though it may be) does to an as yet uncredited victim: the bookstore. I can definitively state this because (other than being a lifelong serious bookstore customer and librarian assistant working my way through high school) I have a son who works at a Borders in the UK to make his own way through university.

It is an usurpation of the bookstore's private property rights to recategorize books. The vandals have no right disturbing the property of others, especially if they have no interest in buying the items. Furthermore, the aim of this activity is to make it harder for others to find or buy the product, which costs the bookstore money. Finally the bookstore has to pay someone to hunt down these books and re-categorize them. The loss of the employee time in doing this likely will eat up the profits in selling said books, so it may well stop ordering those problem books (leading to censorship accomplished).

We should all respect other people's rights to their opinion, even if the opinion is considered stupid. As importantly, if not more so, we absolutely must respect private property rights (and that includes the right to categorize, file, or display said property as desired) otherwise we lose one of the major underpinnings of civil society.

On a personal note, I have a huge, multi-thousand volume home library. One thing that bothers me greatly is when my kids get a book from one shelf (it is well organized) and then just stick it anywhere handy when done. It means I can spend hours looking for a book, and might not find it until it is time to move and we recatalogue all of the books to see what to keep and what to give away. Make no mistake, moving books in a library is the same as burying treasure, and sometimes it is very difficult to find them again (especially in a bookstore where you are paying your employees to look, and you have 100,000 or more books on the shelves to look through).

It is interesting to note that the Darwinists are the ones acting like fanatics in this issue, who can't stand an opposing view, reasoned debate, and are engaging in vandalism and de-facto censorship to "win" the debates they often refuse to have. I am a non-religious non-Darwinian. I once believed in it (and I do consider believe to be the right word, not logic), but over the years, scientifically, I have looked at the evidence and find the theory very wanting. It doesn't make me a religious nut, or a fundamentalist. I don't have that religious faith. I would just prefer not to believe in something with massive holes and theory faults that demonstrate it is unlikely to be true. If this puts me a step closer to believing in the actions of a Supreme Architect of the Universe, or Ancient Astronaut theory, so be it. Unlike most Darwinists, I prefer to follow the actual evidence that exists, and not believe that some second coming or missing link will validate my faith in a godless theory because I am emotionally invested in it and don't want to come clean, admitting it is probably wrong.

For more reading about how mainstream science gets even civilizational origins and development wrong, head over to ancientengineers.com for a basic (but growing in complexity) website that also lists a number of books regarding such subjects.

I don't have a radio show, so I think I can get away with what I'm about to say. Bookstores, aside from being the workplace of choice for various "alternative" life forms, (including those with a penchant for creative piercing placements and unnatural hair colors), tend to be run and staffed by liberals.

That being said, I wanted to talk about my own sort of bookstore-disobedience: I've noticed that books that support liberal themes or books written by liberals often get special treatment in terms of display. While most books are placed in the ordinary spine-facing-out position, booksellers often place the popular liberal books with their covers in full view.

Whenever I have the occasion to do it, I'll place an Ann Coulter in front of Michael Moore , or cover Al Gore with Byron York. When I have a little extra time I'll reorganize the books so only conservative books are facing out.

Since its lazy liberals working there, my arrangements usually last a while.

Its fun and doesn't really take up too much time.

Same here skeptic. I often make changed to the Popular Non-fiction display at my local library. The liberal bias of the staffers is all too obvious -- I do my part to provide balance.

Only once have i ever "buried" a book ;)