Beyond Book Bans: Rising Censorship in America

By Jo-Ann Johnston

Do you know if your local public library carries the works of African American novelist Toni Morrison? Or if, instead, the Nobel Prize winning author’s books have been run out of the stacks? What about J. K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” or the series by Dav Pilkey, “Captain Underpants”?

How about an easier question. Say a tween in your family or school is bullied because they are gay or are perceived to be. Would you be able to ask your school’s librarian if there are any helpful resources where the kid could find help?

These questions come up because it’s Banned Books Week (October 5 -11) in the United States. The American Library Association, the free-expression group PEN America, other writers, readers, parents, teachers and everyday citizens appear as concerned as ever over free access to literature and the freedom to read in our country.

Banned Books Week is a public awareness campaign for the right to read freely, without censorship. The program fights restrictions placed on access to books in public libraries, school libraries, and the public schools that educate the children of military service members posted abroad. The books and the readers are the heroes of this campaign. The books exist as creative works to be discovered, read, and judged on their own merits by the readers, Americans with First Amendment rights. Writers belong in the network, too, but it is the right to read freely that is highlighted, so you don’t have to be a famous author or some kind of academic elitist to belong.

Participants in outreach events are people at the grassroots level, and peaceful, for they consider the pen mightier than the sword. They hold read-ins at local libraries or bookstores, post on social media, and sell T-shirts and tote bags. They may talk publicly about what books have been important to them at difficult turns in their lives, or write letters to editors of local newspapers where papers are still printed. Currently, there is no clear count of events related to this event. That’s probably impossible, given its grassroots nature, but there is more fear about the need for a convincing campaign than in previous times.

There are a few reasons for that. The American Library Association and PEN America have been counting book bans and say 4,000 unique titles were banned across 25 states in the last year. More than 6,800 actions yielded those results.

Who is seeking bans

Those seeking bans are no longer individual parents as they were in previous decades. Instead, 72 percent of ban attempts come from organized groups with names, or other official actors such as school board members, according to the American Library Association. Better communications and the emergence of action plans or templates for book challenges has made it easier for new groups to spring up and copy the tactics used by like-minded groups in other towns or states.

Often, the groups cite the rationale of exercising parents rights to direct their children’s education as a prime motivation to cut books from the stacks. But, in real-world classroom and school libraries, parents have always been able to object about a certain book to a teacher or librarian and then agree on some alternate title for the child to read or assignment to carry out so that the student can still learn about whatever topic the class is covering.

That is partly why librarians, some parents, and other ban opponents counter that parental rights are not really being upheld when a book is banned, because then one parent or group of parents is effectively telling other parents what their own children can or cannot read. While families could purchase books for their children, prices have been rising sharply. This puts many books permanently out of reach.

Certainly, socially sensitive topics have been part of the motivations of book-ban attempts; people say they do not want society degraded or corrupted by texts whose topics or themes the banners consider immoral. It is no coincidence, though, that the initial book banning efforts in the early 1980s came from political action groups funded by fundamentalist Christian organizations. So there were complaints about books where characters or plot developments incorporated something about women’s liberation or gender equality, or gay rights, or decried a lack of religious Christian content or pro-America elements.

Even then, America was on the road to becoming the more pluralistic country it is today, so bans provoked objections on those grounds. And when injection of religious content into the curriculum through books was an objective, those against bans said the constitutional separation of church and state was being violated.

While those topics still come up in more recent attempted bans, gay rights have taken on a higher profile recently. Sexuality as a theme is often cited.

So, too, have titles with any content that might reflect diversity, equity, and inclusiveness in the American story. Yet, since the 1980s, more scholars, historians, and authors have explored people and historical events that involve or involved more non-white people, more women, and more enslaved people. So the element of race or racism, actual or perceived, is now part of the book ban ecosystem.

Not a Good Time to Limit Reading Materials

Parents and teachers might be chilled to consider the country’s reading proficiency. Today’s school children read fewer books; less of them read for pleasure (those are usually books they choose themselves); and tests that measure how well children can read show steep drops over time and at levels that the COVID pandemic by itself do not account for. Is the removal of books part and the culture that characterizes reading as bad to blame? Children, of all ages,need to read more, not less.

Beyond the ban of books

Another factor to consider in understanding why the topic of texts and stories and other works has become so charged is that bans have not stopped at the doorsteps of libraries. Museums and their holdings and their professional staffs are now under fire, too.

Early in 2025, a little-known agency called the Institute of Museum of Library Services (IMLS) was targeted for staff cuts, grant reductions, and reorganization in the name of reducing waste. Others consider the work being dismantled essential: the prime work of IMLS involved providing museums, libraries, and other non-profit agencies grants to put on new exhibits and programs, delivering professional training to grow the ranks of professionals in the field, and providing technical assistance to manage grant money.

The practical effect has been that grants have been cut, exhibits and new programs cancelled, and career staff replaced. Even though a court ruled against such action, the damage was widespread and varied. In some places inter-library loans of books and resources between libraries was stopped; newspapers and magazine subscriptions to prison libraries that have no internet access were cut, and scholarships to train more Native Americans in library studies disappeared.

There is a throughline from library censorship to the situation described above. Content is restricted. That’s the case whether that content comes in the form of a book from another town; in the shape of news content for people society generally wants to see reformed; and in the greater numbers of professionals in a minority community to assist readers.

Where Are Your Favorite Comedians?

Two television networks, both private, publicly traded corporations, have shown willingness to censor content from a comedian and satirist. This was when Sinclair Broadcast Group and Nexstar Media Group, Inc. refused, briefly, to show new episodes of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” on their stations after the ABC Network allowed Kimmel to come back to work following a suspension. ABC was spooked when Kimmel described Charlie Kirk – the founder of Turning Point USA who was murdered, and Kirk’s death – in a critical way. ABC pulled Kimmel off the air, which is a free speech issue, and then restored the comedian to his platform. But Sinclair and Nexstar, refused to let their viewers see the Kimmel show.

This all came after CBS announced it was cancelling its own late-night show from comedian Stephen Colbert for satirically characterizing a big network deal.

Satirists in America and elsewhere have held political figures and their decisions up for scrutiny and ridicule for decades. Free speech and all that. And even when it seems entertainment bosses should be beyond the reach of censure, the threat of partisan political influence on industry regulation hangs over the scene now.

Actors might be next. Remember from history when screenwriters, movie executives and stars were harassed in the late 1940s and 1950s by the U.S. Senator JosephMcCarthy? He threatened to use his influence to destroy their careers - and did in many cases - if they did not publicly name “Communist sympathizers” and subject others to investigation. All this developed against a backdrop of a “Red Scare” that communists (as compared to “woke” partisans) could and might seize power. It was a dark chapter in American history.

Revered actor and World War II veteran Henry Fonda, in collective self-defense with others in the industry against McCarthy, then formed a group they called the Committee for the First Amendment. Recently, his daughter, 87-year-old actress and liberal activist Jane Fonda, announced she and others are relaunching the committee.

Fonda and allies said, in part, that America is again facing a threat “in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry.” In response, the committee is asking the public for non-violent protest that could be expressed through, say, cancelling Disney+ accounts at home.

Conceivably, that could leave families and children more time for reading.