Happily, a solution has been reached in the book controversy at the Marshall Public Library.

Unhappily, the solution, in part, sets a dangerous precedent.

This past week, the library board of trustees on a majority vote decided to remove "Fun Home" by Alison Bechdel and "Blankets" by Craig Thompson from the shelves while a "material selection policy" is developed.

Nearly 90 people witnessed the decision at the board's meeting in the Marshall municipal courtroom, an attendance far outstripping the seating capacity of the regular library meeting room.

I was sitting in the back when Marshall Public Library Board of Trustees President Anita Wright announced the decision to the board and the audience.

First, before I analyze this decision, some disclosure. I am a member of the public library Friends of the Library group and have been for some time.

We have a fine public library in Marshall, with a diverse selection of books, magazines and other resources. Library Director Amy Crump writes a column on the library's Internet site which we repeat in the paper each Wednesday.

I have been a champion of books since I could breathe. I grew up in Pennsylvania in the shadow of Pittsburgh's steel mills -- always reading. My parents believed books unlocked worlds and encouraged everyone in the family to read.

I have never forgotten those lessons. I read just about everything I can, though I would admit my reading quotient is less these days since the fall sports schedule is in full swing on the television.

However, books are sacred to me and I am, as a newspaper editor, certainly enamored with the possibilities of the printed page each day. I certainly hope that books will always be with us, no matter how sophisticated the technologies to deliver information become.

Thus, it's with a heavy heart and in the truest spirit of public discussion that I register my displeasure at the board's precedent-setting decision to remove the two books from the shelves while this policy is developed.

I'm no legal scholar but there is one thing I do know: censorship is censorship.

I have no qualms with Louise Mills of Marshall, who objected to the two books and filed the necessary paperwork to bring the matter to the attention of the board of trustees. Mills is a resident who has a complaint and she has the right to register it.

What I object to is pulling the books off the shelves.

The library board has essentially blinked in the harsh light of public discussion.

I wouldn't have cared if the decision had been made to put the two books behind a counter so that only age-appropriate individuals could see them. I wouldn't have cared if the library board of trustees decided to lock the books up in a safe and give the library director the only key.

I wouldn't have cared if the trustees chose to put the two books in a glass-enclosed case in the middle of Marshall's square, and again gave the library director the only key.

Removing the books from the shelves is a very bad idea.

It sets the precedent that I can, just as Louise Mills, go into the library and file the necessary paperwork to have the paintings on the walls of the library removed while the material selection policy is developed.

It allows me, or anyone else, to get that dry, boring history magazine that no one reads anyway yanked from the racks while the policy is developed.

It sets the precedent that allows me to make sure that all those 10 Internet stations are removed from the library while the policy is developed because, heck, who needs to look at the world outside of Marshall?

And it sets the precedent that I can ask -- while the policy is being developed -- that the trustees take off all those public notices from that bulletin board at the library's entrance because they are an eyesore.

As Marshall's Chuck Hird suggested in a letter to the editor on Thursday, let's close the library while this policy is developed. Closing the library would put everything on the same level playing field -- the two objectionable books and all the other wonders that are inside the public library.

No one would have access to anything.

Period.

Of course, closing the library is out of the question. Our children, young adults, older middle-aged adults and our wonderful golden-agers don't deserve that fate. Nor do I.

So, we wait. The trustees will develop their material selection policy and the two books will be off the shelves.

I just hope that no one decides to file the paperwork to protest the Bible being on the shelves at the Marshall Public Library. It contains sex, violence, adultery, lust, murder, greed, avarice and descriptions of lifestyles to which some individuals might object.

It just doesn't have the pictures.

However, under the precedent set this week by the library board of trustees, if someone objects to the Bible or any other item in the Marshall Public Library, it, too, will have to be removed while the material selection policy is developed.

I have a suggestion. Keep the two books, "Fun Home" and "Blankets," behind the counter during the development of the policy, restricting some access but not all.

That way, this dangerous precedent of removing books -- any books -- from the shelves will not be in force.

Mason is the editor of The Marshall Democrat-News. Spectrum appears on Friday.