On February 5, we hosted a critical conversation on digital censorship in schools and libraries in advance of our most recent report, Neo-Censorship in U.S. Libraries: An Investigation Into Digital Content Suppression. Moderated by Michelle Reed, Director of Programs at Library Futures, the discussion featured Jim Duncan of the Colorado Library Consortium, Lindsey Kimery of the Tennessee Association of School Librarians, Sarah Lamdan of the American Library Association (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom, and Dr. Emily Knox of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign School of Information Sciences. The panelists explored the evolving landscape of digital censorship and intellectual freedom, including legislative censorship efforts.
The Growing Threat of Censorship
Jim Duncan shared his experience in Colorado, where parents testified against the Colorado State Board of Education, claiming that children were exposed to “inappropriate” content through database search terms. Social media campaigns targeted libraries, school and state boards, and committees, eventually escalating into a civil lawsuit against EBSCO and the Colorado Library Consortium, an organization that creates services for libraries throughout Colorado. The lawsuit reflects ongoing claims in the United States that librarians are harming children by promoting ‘sexually explicit’ materials: a subjective term that remains prone to varied interpretations. Duncan stated that to understand issues of censorship and book/database banning, we must “shine a light on them despite discomfort and distress.”
Based in Tennessee, Lindsey Kimery discussed the challenges school librarians face. Restrictive laws like the Age-Appropriate Materials Act prohibit K-12 students from accessing topics deemed inappropriate. She described the difficulty of discussing these topics with people who aren’t interested in facts, instead seeking to sensationalize testimonies to grab the media’s attention. In these situations, “parental rights” are exploited to impose a small group of parents’ views on the entire community. Kimery emphasized the difficulty of attempting to navigate censorship while trying to do what’s best for students, as school librarians have no voice in state departments.
Sarah Lamdan connected Duncan and Kimery’s thoughts, saying that censorship efforts are nationally organized and driven by the virality of social media. Organizations strategically select provocative excerpts, making them go viral or compiling lists of books they oppose to generate traction. The highly coordinated efforts largely target books that align with efforts to erase LGBTQIA+ rights, racial justice, and the experiences of marginalized communities. The efforts can use “soft censorship” tactics, in the form activities meant to chill collection development practices or pressure librarians to either remove books, acquire specific materials, or relocate certain titles to restricted sections. Lamdan maintained that the diverse materials are “crucial to the collections we aim to build in libraries.”
Dr. Emily Knox described censorship through the ‘Four Rs’—redaction, restriction, relocation, and removal—to highlight how book challenges are part of a larger effort to reshape public access to information. She draws on The Sum of Us by Heather McGee to argue that public goods (including libraries) are often devalued when the people they serve are perceived as “undeserving,” resulting in censorship practices that target marginalized groups. Many book challenges stem from misconceptions, such as the assumption that all LGBTQIA+ content is inherently about sex or that stories about BIPOC individuals must follow a triumphalist narrative. Dr. Knox warned that these challenges are part of a broader attempt to dismantle the public sphere and to control who can access resources in public spaces. Dr. Knox concluded that the effort to dismantle the public sphere “isn’t new—it’s been happening since the rise of public libraries and schools in the late 19th century.”
Addressing Censorship
A key theme throughout the panel was the importance of proactively supporting frontline staff and ensuring that library professionals are well-equipped to handle the growing pressures of censorship.
Community support efforts came up multiple times as the panelists encouraged those facing these challenges to reach out to the ALA or their state library association for support. The Office for Intellectual Freedom, Unite Against Book Bans, and the Freedom to Read Foundation can offer helpful advice for getting librarians involved locally through their school, library board, or board of trustees to address censorship and content restrictions. As Lamdan said: “raising awareness and standing up against censorship is crucial—it’s about protecting everyone’s right to read.” Dr. Knox added that libraries should be proactive and establish policies to prepare staff for handling challenges.
The discussion then shifted to how libraries can effectively respond to these challenges. Dr. Knox recommended those who deal with challenges tailor responses to local community contexts, as people often bring challenges to materials over fear of societal changes. Duncan echoed her thoughts, urging librarians to honor local concerns and fears by having real conversations with them. Kimery added that school librarians should consistently communicate to parents, caregivers, and the broader school community that they are there to support the students. She said, “Just keep reinforcing that you’re part of the community, you care about their opinions, and you’re dedicated to supporting the children.”
However, when organizations like Pornography Is Not Education (PINE) or Moms for Liberty make unsubstantiated claims and fabricate evidence that gets picked up by media outlets, librarians still need to come together to figure out how to combat disinformation and misinformation being spread. Counter-complaints are not very effective, as those who challenge intellectual freedom can easily ignore them. People bring their own biases to how they interpret a text. Librarians could emphasize the expertise of the people making these decisions in the first place. Library materials are chosen and selected by trained professionals to serve their patrons’ varied educational and entertainment needs, who work hard to make relevant collections—even when it means challenging vendors on problematic content.
As digital resources and databases increasingly become new battlegrounds for censorship, the public must understand how these platforms function. To demystify databases and clearly show what they contain, Duncan suggested exposing the real-world consequences of database bans by listing the widely accepted publications (e.g., Christian Science Monitor, The Economist) that would also be restricted under broad censorship efforts. By showcasing how these bans extend far beyond the specific issue at hand, librarians could emphasize how censorship harms everyone. It is also important to call out misleading tactics such as “database hopping” that present an adult library user’s databases as accessible to children, creating confusion about what young users can actually access. Tactics like “database hopping” fuel misinformation and misrepresent how library databases function.
Conclusion
The panel discussion underscored the need for proactive policies, community engagement, and strong support networks to combat misinformation and organized censorship campaigns. As digital censorship efforts continue to grow, librarians should stay informed and prepared, engage with the community, and collaborate with organizations.
Resources from the Event
About the Author
Mia Jakobsen (she/they) is a fourth-year student at the University of Toronto, studying media theory, LGBTQ+ history, and digital humanities. Their research interests lie in exploring archival silences produced by cisheteronormativity and systems of power, with a newfound desire to reframe her work through creative praxis. Mia is aiming to study library and archival science, to protect intellectual freedom and marginalized stories.
Content licensed under CC BY 4.0
