Censorship and Teens in 2025

By simplest definition, “censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen.” (vocabulary.com, n.d.) This could happen on a micro level—for example, an individual refusing to read something because of a trigger warning—or it could happen on a governmental level, as in the case of Utah’s recently enacted book ban legislation, HB 29. (2024) Censorship only becomes unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, if it is “the action by government officials to prohibit or suppress publications or services on the basis of their content.” (LaRue, 2007).

Censoring one’s own intake of media because of content is a protected right, as is censoring the media consumption of one’s own child. The banning of books in schools through governmental authority, however, is an example of unconstitutional censorship, and a violation of the First Amendment. For the purposes of this blog, and in keeping with the norms of professional librarianship, per LaRue’s definition, the word censorship will refer to unconstitutional acts of blocking materials and resources, and challenges will refer to attempts, requests, and demands to governmental authority to censor. Self-censorship will refer to the internal censorship of a librarian or educator—or any governmental authority—that occurs because of personal disagreement with content or fear of retribution. For example, if a librarian disagrees with a book’s content or fears criminal prosecution due to including a book in a collection, they might choose not to select that book in the first place, no matter the evidence supporting it as an appropriate selection. This is an important kind of censorship that increases in frequency with censorship movements and is nearly impossible to measure. (Moore & Tudor, 2024)

(Photo: Unsplash)

“It is important to recognize that books available in schools, whether in a school or classroom library, or as part of a curriculum, were selected by librarians and educators as part of the educational offerings to students. Book bans occur when those choices are overridden by school boards, administrators, teachers, or politicians, on the basis of a particular book’s content.” —PEN (n.d.)

The Urge to Censor and Socio-Political Movements to Censor

The urge to censor is deeply human. It’s not realistic to aim to eradicate the urge to censor. We can and we must, however, work to understand it, so that we can mitigate its negative impacts. Human nature can be simultaneously self-aware and self-sabotaging. The awareness makes known to us just how profoundly vulnerable we are, how uncertain our very existence is, and how little we know despite knowing so much. This “knowledgeable unknowing” can elicit a wide range of negative emotions—anxiety, fear, dread, terror, etc. Our primitive brains perceive such things as a direct threat to biological survival. And survival is a primary instinct among all animal life on earth.

As humans, we have a long history of seeking “solutions” for this dilemma of knowing we are threatened and possessing no way to elude the threat. Religion, spirituality, and philosophy are ways to seek answers and solace. Art and learning are others. In our modern world, we value and have documented both here in the U.S. and abroad, what we’ve come to collectively agree as universal human rights, which include freedoms of religion, thought, and expression. Most agree that such rights are important, because they believe it is each individual’s right to grapple with the state of being human in a way that works best for them, while not harming or limiting the rights of others. But there are also many people who perceive threats as coming from people who think and believe differently from them, that it is the thought or the belief itself which poses the threat. This is where censorship comes into play. What do we do when we truly believe that someone else’s existence, lived experience, and belief system is wrong and a threat to our own? What happens if we perceive the threat is to our child? It’s natural to feel a “gut-level” urge to block these “dangerous” ideas, even if it’s not a helpful urge.

Parents are particularly vulnerable to perceived threats. Their job, after all, is to keep their children safe and alive. At the same time, parents have a legal right to censor their children’s media exposure. And their children have a legal right to intellectual freedom. It’s no wonder things can get heated quickly in schools when there are significant societal shifts and impactful events. Change is hard, at the individual and societal levels. Understanding this is critical to being able to navigate the increasingly fraught role of acting as a gatekeeper to freedom of thought and freedom to learn, which the is fundamental duty of the library, the school, and those who work within. For more on understanding our First Amendment Rights as they pertain to the freedoms of expression, learning, and consuming media, which apply nearly equally to youth, see Core Documents from the American Library Association’s Office and the Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights | ALA

The State of Intellectual Freedom in 2025

“If free speech is the bedrock of democracy, fear and paranoia lay the groundwork for authoritarianism.” (PEN, 2025)

We are experiencing democratic backsliding right now in the United States. Movement toward autocracy is not surprising given some of the events over the first quarter of the 21st century. September 11, 2001, the first African American president, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Black Lives Matter serve as examples of significant events that have resulted in a range of societal responses, from terror of violence to fear and anxiety over perceived threat to traditional worldviews; from the grim realities of disease on a massive scale to hope and inspiration resulting from breakthroughs in the fight to break down oppression of marginalized populations. A lot has been going on. For those of us not old enough to have experienced the trials of the mid-twentieth century and the subsequent civil rights movement, so much of what is happening right now feels unprecedented. But human reactions to big events, even those that are perceived by many as positive, are often marked by urgency and anxiety, by perceived threat, and as discussed above, movement toward autocracy is a common response. Censorship is a primary tool of the authoritarian, and the education of our youth is not an uncommon target. This is a broad and important topic, and absolutely relevant to understanding current attacks on intellectual freedom, particularly that which has caught fire and exploded over the last five years. It’s beyond the scope of this blog to further examine this topic, but it is recommended that educators, librarians, and all those who are interested in working to protect our First Amendment Rights keep watch and continue learning. Here are two titles published last year, and a link to a PEN article from this week (4/29), to help with understanding the complex state of faltering democracy in which we find ourselves, and how it’s intrinsically tied to intellectual freedom.

A Five-Alarm Fire for Free Speech - PEN America (2025)

That Librarian by Amanda Jones (2024)

They Came for the Schools: One Town’s Fight Over Race and Identity, and the New War for America’s Classrooms by Mike Hixenbaugh (2024)

How Youth Are Being Affected

The current censorship movement in the United States is focused largely on stories, policies, and even words (PEN 2025) that support and work to breakdown inequalities and injustices for LGBTQIA+ and racial minority populations. Additionally, sexually explicit content is being wrongly labeled “obscene,” “pornographic,” and “inappropriate” for inclusion in libraries and curricula—this is frequently why Green’s writing for teens is objectionable—often under the guise of Chrisitan values. Mental health, also a theme in Green’s work, is receiving its fair share of othering as well. These challenges, rejections, and demonization of lived experiences serve to further oppression of marginalized populations. Bullying, “othering,” hate speech, violence, increase in risky behaviors, and the resulting, and worsening, mental health struggles are the consequences. The oppressed become more oppressed, the oppressors are emboldened in their oppression. It should also be noted that kids who become the oppressors due to lack of education regarding topics they or their parents are uncomfortable with, are also at risk of poorer outcomes as a result of fear-based worldviews. Nobody wins when we ban stories and ideas.

“I think books are a threat to many contemporary power structures, because many of those power structures want us to see other people—especially marginalized people—whether they’re marginalized because of race or sexuality or gender identity or mental illness or whatever—power structures want us to see those people as less than fully human. And so I would argue that if great books have an agenda, it is not a liberal agenda or a gay agenda or a Christian agenda—it is a humanizing agenda, a mission to recognize and acknowledge human value within ourselves and others.” —John Green (2022)