The writer of “NLB has right to decide on its definition of family” (July 11) argued that being “a tolerant society” meant the National Library Board has a democratic right to express its position on how a family is defined.

This argument mistakes a public institution for a private member of society and conflates public duties with civil rights.

The writer and I have the personal autonomy to evaluate ideas as well as the democratic right to express our respective beliefs on right and wrong and act accordingly within the limits of the law.

This may not hold entirely for public servants acting in their official capacity. Their use of resources and power should be consistent with the duties of their office, which sometimes take priority over their status as private civil society members.

For example, the President is prohibited from publicly expressing his personal opinions on matters of government responsibility.

Should he do so, I would be justified in criticising him, not because I am intolerant of his opinions but because he would be falling short in his duties.

The NLB is not prohibited from choosing to serve some community interests over others, but members of the public have the socio-ethical right to criticise it if they reason that its choices are in principle inconsistent with its statutory duties.

What these duties are, and should ideally be, is debatable; the National Library Board Act gives only a general guide.

But one principal duty should surely be to provide a wide range of reading materials, recognising individuals’ ability to evaluate the contents for themselves.

This ability does not extend to children. I am therefore heartened that the withdrawn books will be made available for parents and adults, instead of being pulped.