Executive Summary

‍
Protected by the United States’s First Amendment, the right to Free Speech and Press is a right regularly taken for granted by many Americans. Book censorship is a direct threat to this right and can be seriously detrimental to the education and freedom of expression of many Americans. This brief will discuss how media censorship has a negative effect on the education of American individuals, specifically American youth, and how it can be combated with policy implementations that protect different forms of public media, subsequently protecting the civil right of education.

Overview

‍
Freedom of speech and press is a Constitutional right in the United States, and is wholeheartedly embraced by citizens and political actors alike. Because it is a Constitutional right, and there are many states that have laws reinforcing the protection of this right, it seems that there is little Americans can say or write that would evoke serious legal action. However, there have been numerous occasions where U.S courts have censored free speech and press under the guise of protecting national security, defamation, obscenity, copyright, and more. Concerns over these potentially harmful issues could be legitimate exceptions to the overarching right we have. Yet time and time again, these specific exceptions seem to be taken advantage of and used to violate the First Amendment; specifically in ways that censor media like books, movies, and art. This can mainly be seen in the controversial book bannings occurring across all 50 states. As of 2024, more than 10,000 books were banned in the United States (PEN America), 44% of which were written by or about people of color. Despite many non-state affiliated groups petitioning for more laws to be passed that prevent censorship of media.

Relevance

‍
Media censorship has been clearly established as an issue of importance surrounding freedom of expression and access to education in the U.S, and has been acknowledged as one for some time. However, the recent rise of misinformation and increase of political polarization in America has prompted many to call for stricter regulation or total censorship of content and media, both digitally and physically. Even so, many hold concerns over government duplicity and the potential negative educational impact of fully preventing Americans from accessing certain forms of knowledge found in banned or censored media. Censorship and restriction on free speech is a direct reflection of democratic values, individual freedoms, and seriously impacts the access to information we have. The ongoing legal and ethical challenges surrounding media censorship continues to shape policy discussions, and requires a nuanced approach that considers both the risks of unchecked speech and the dangers of excessive restriction.

History

Current Stances

‍
Censorship has long been a contentious issue not only in the U.S but globally as well. It is safe to say that the United States has historically been a place where the importance of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech has been highly valued. In fact, the Global Expression Report ranks the U.S as 21/195 countries in the world. Yet America simultaneously holds a long history dealing with censorship, and how to accurately interpret the First Amendment.

Many organizations have grown throughout the years of censorship legal and ethical battles, such as the American Library Association, to advocate for free speech and against intellectual censorship, arguing that excessive censorship enacted by government entities directly threatens democratic values and the open exchange of ideas. They emphasize the importance of protecting all speech, even that which is deemed controversial under varying standards, while also warning against government overreach and politically motivated restrictions that limit the education of stakeholders. These organizations actively rally political and public support for limiting media censorship, especially when restrictions play into religious or political beliefs.

On the contrary, proponents of stronger media regulations have become more and more widespread in recent years. These groups argue that misinformation, hateful rhetoric, and harmful content within media can lead to serious consequences if allowed to be distributed and accessed freely, such as things like violence and political destabilization. Yet what these groups fail to specifically outline is what exactly counts as harmful content or hate speech, and who exactly the speech is directly harming. Overall, many lawmakers and advocacy groups either wholeheartedly or generally support media policies that require platforms to take more responsibility for curbing disinformation, especially around sensitive controversial, extremist, or political issues. As the media landscape evolves, U.S. policy on censorship remains in flux, with policymakers grappling with how to balance free expression.

Policy Problem

Stakeholders

‍
Perhaps the largest group of stakeholders within this issue is the group with the least background knowledge on it: the American youth. Education via free media is a valued right of the American people that the banning of books removes. Removing books based on racial or sexual disapproval, or because they are deemed too controversial, can prevent those who have not yet been introduced to the literature from learning and exploring the lessons it has to offer, which can hinder the development of individual identity and free or critical thinking.

Risks of Indifference

‍
Holding indifference towards the issue of book banning is not uncommon, and is a result of both the decline in reading rates in favor of digital or social platforms. Yet the more books are banned or censored, the more people will remain without access to information and diverse thought perspectives that can crucially inform individual thought and opinion. If stakeholders continue to neglect the problem at hand, our vital freedom of speech and press will begin to disappear in front of our eyes. Inaction will only further an inability of students to think for themselves, form original thoughts and opinions, and think about a larger global perspective. It is startlingly clear that the only path forward is swift and decisive action against book banning.

Nonpartisan Reasoning

‍
Book banning impacts a wide range of groups within the United States, and given the current political climate of the US, it is incredibly imperative that nonpartisan action is taken to prevent literature from being banned. The benefits of this prevention can include but isn’t limited to the following:

1. Increased media literacy: Media literacy is currently at a significant decrease as compared to previous years, mostly due to the new digital age and the introduction of technology that can process and analyze media on one’s behalf. However, this leads to more and more Americans being unable to properly interpret and analyze media on their own. In fact, almost 54% of adults in the United States are deficient in basic literacy and literacy skills. By limiting the banning of books, and perhaps even encouraging the consumption of them, an average American will be able to unlock great amounts of knowledge previously unknown to them, while simultaneously promoting harmful biases. They can also work on developing and strengthening their literacy skills, which can in turn produce a whole new generation of individuals who are advanced critical thinkers that can prove greatly beneficial for society and the advancement of America as a nation, socially, economically, etc.
2. Reducing prejudiced perspectives by increasing diversification of thought: In the ever-evolving and increasingly connected world, it is more important than ever to develop and maintain diverse perspectives, and hold a worldly view of the present. Book banning limits the access Americans have to the knowledge that can help educate and inform them on diverse pathways of thought. If fewer books are banned, the potential for the development of harmful biases will be decreased and an increase in inclusive and varied thinking can occur within the United States.
3. Personal and social well-being: Countless studies have demonstrated the clear benefits of reading to not only individual well-being, but social well-being. For the individual, reading can improve memory and sleep, reduce stress and risk for cognitive disease, and further intellect; socially, reading promotes empathy and social understanding, as well as communication skills. Banning the literature that provokes the most complex thinking or that challenges societal flaws would instantly remove these benefits, and would result in a cruder, less educated, and more prejudiced society. Books provide exposure to valued characteristics and behaviors, introducing readers to exemplary figures, despite their possible fictional nature.

Tried Policy

‍
Multiple New York State bills addressing the issue of book banning have been introduced in recent years. Assembly bill A8870 aims to prohibit libraries from banning books and other forms of media based on partisan or doctrinal disapproval, with Senate bill S9324 existing as a senatorial version of this bill.

While both bills aim to prevent any media from being banned in New York state based on religious or partisan beliefs, they have not yet left committee, with the most recent review being January 25th, 2024, nearly a year after the bill was originally introduced in 2023.

Policy Options

1. Blocking the banning of books based on racial or sexual prejudices:
   Racial and sexual biases, prejudices, and stereotypes are prevalent factors in the disapproval of many pieces of literature by certain demographics. These groups may find these pieces of literature offensive or harmful, though the way of thinking that ultimately led to this conclusion could be deemed harmful as well. Biases and pre-existing prejudices can weigh heavily into the opinion of those thinking that a book is not appropriate for a variety of audiences. It can also cloud judgment of what an actually inappropriate book is versus one that just disagrees with or challenges pre-existing beliefs.
   Therefore, a policy that preemptively blocks any banning of books if the reasoning is based on racial or sexual prejudices or biases can prevent a vast majority of attempted book bannings. It can also help open up diverse perspectives that the books that were to be banned have to offer in order to continue to help eliminate racial and sexual prejudices.
2. Prevent the banning of books based on religious beliefs:
   Despite popular belief, America is a country in which no official religion has been declared, due to the plethora of cultures and religions that exist within the nation. Therefore, the reasoning that books are subject to banning because of religious disapproval seems to go against the secularity of the United States at its core. While a book could potentially offend an individual who practices a certain religion, it should be noted that the First Amendment protects the freedom to free speech and press, but also to free religion. Free religion maintains that any American is allowed to practice any religion at all without government interference. It can be strongly argued that by banning books based on one religious perspective, the government is limiting another religion and culture's right to practice and freely share their way of thinking.
3. Provide more accessibility to books and increase knowledge of their contents:
   Librarians and teachers are often the most in tune and well-equipped individuals when it comes to vetting and analyzing books. Policies such as the Freedom to Read Act, introduced by the NYCLU, would allow librarians to develop policies to empower library staff to curate and develop book collections that provide students with access to the widest array of developmentally appropriate materials available. These policies could be standardized or left up to educator interpretation.
   Placing trust and responsibility onto educators who are trained specifically to provide access to diverse fields of knowledge to all would prove greatly beneficial to increasing knowledge and book accessibility. This could, in turn, prevent potential bannings by increasing awareness of the media.

Conclusions

‍This policy brief aims to introduce and emphasize the issue of book banning and censorship in America in the 21st century, through analysis of the reasoning behind book banning, and presenting numerous policy options in order to effectively counter book banning. Currently, the most feasible and realistic out of these policy options is prohibiting the banning of books based on religious disapproval, which is currently being debated on the New York State Congress floor.

All in all, the banning of books is a direct threat to each American individual's First Amendment right, and it is imperative to acknowledge this growing crisis by examining different book banning cases thoroughly. While many loopholes can be found in order to continue the attempt to ban many of the most important, and relevant, pieces of literature, it is my belief that we will do what is right when push comes to shove. No individual should be denied their right to access knowledge and information in a free state such as the United States of America.

References

[1] American Library Association. 2008. “First Amendment and Censorship.” American Library Association. June 13, 2008. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship.

[2] Boone, Rebecca. 2023. “Experts Say Attacks on Free Speech Are Rising across the U.S.” PBS NewsHour. March 15, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/experts-say-attacks-on-free-speech-are-rising-across-the-us.

[3] Italie, Hillel. 2025. “Free Speech Organizations Denounce Education Department’s Calling Book Bans a ‘Hoax.’” AP News. January 27, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/book-bans-hoax-pen-library-association-255dd6f805979ee595a22ac16ec91d03.

[4] “NY State Assembly Bill 2023-A8870.” 2023. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/A8870.

[5] “NY State Senate Bill 2023-S9324.” 2023. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2023/S9324.

[6] PEN America. 2024. “Book Bans - PEN America.” PEN America. September 9, 2024. https://pen.org/book-bans/.

[7] Shepard, Louisa. 2022. “On Book Bans and Free Speech.” Penn Today. August 4, 2022. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/book-bans-and-free-speech-sigal-ben-porath.

[8] Steele, Jennifer Elaine. 2020. “A History of Censorship in the United States.” Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy 5 (1): 6–19. https://journals.ala.org/index.php/jifp/article/view/7208/10293.

[9] “The Decline of Media Literacy and How to Navigate the Ocean of Information.” 2024. Andrews.edu. https://www.andrews.edu/life/student-movement/issues/2024-11-22/id_medialiteracy.html.

[10] “U.S. Constitution - First Amendment.” 1791. Constitution.congress.gov. Library of Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.

[11] “US Censorship Policy.” 2011. Stanford.edu. https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/us_policy.html.

[12] Webb, Susan. 2023. “Book Banning.” The Free Speech Center. Middle Tennessee State University. August 8, 2023. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/book-banning/.

‍