4.3.3: Censorship, Free Speech, and Intellectual Freedom

Censorship

Definition: Censorship

The suppression of ideas and information that some individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous (First Amendment and censorship, 2021)

Censorship involves some members of a society imposing their beliefs and opinions on others regarding what information and ideas are acceptable or objectionable.

Most librarians are opponents of censorship and advocates for free speech and intellectual freedom. The American Library Associations Library Bill of Rights, originally published in 1939, states that "libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment" (Library bill of rights, 2019). We will explore different types of censorship below. First, it is important to understand the concepts of free speech, freedom of the press, and intellectual and academic freedom.

Free Speech and Expression

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

-- First Amendment of the United States Constitution

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

-- United Nations (Universal declaration, 1948).

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was passed by Congress September 25, 1789 and ratified December 15, 1791. Since its ratification, legal cases have addressed the scope and limitations of the First Amendment. For example, in 1969 "the Supreme Court held that inciting a crowd to violence was not protected speech" (The First Amendment). In other cases, courts determined that free speech can protect some behavior, including burning an American flag or wearing an arm band to protest a war (The First Amendment). On a global level, the United Nations articulated the right to freedom of expression and information sharing in it's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal declaration, 1948).

Hate Speech

The First Amendment protects forms of speech that many people find offensive, such as hate speech. There is no official legal definition of hate speech, but it is generally described as "any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin" (Hate speech and hate crime). Hate speech is only a crime when it includes specific threats of violence or incites criminal behavior, but hate crimes are not protected by the First Amendment. The FBI's definition of hate crime is "a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity" (Hate crimes).

In 2019, the United Nations launched the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech "in response to current alarming trends of growing xenophobia, racism and intolerance, violent misogyny, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hatred around the world....[and recognizing] that over the past 75 years, hate speech has been a precursor to atrocity crimes, including genocide." (United Nations Strategy). They emphasize that "the strategy and its implementation [must] be in line with the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The United Nations supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech" (United Nations Strategy).

Freedom of the Press

"The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range of information and opinions."

-- American Civil Libraries Union (Freedom of the press)

The First Amendment also protects the right of journalists and media outlets to publish and distribute information and opinions without control, censorship, or retaliation by the government. Freedom of the press allows informed public engagement in the democratic process by ensuring that the public has access to a wide range of information and multiple perspectives -- including those that are critical of the government.

Intellectual and Academic Freedom

"Intellectual freedom is a core value of the library profession, and a basic right in our democratic society."

-- American Library Association (Intellectual freedom)

"The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition."

-- American Association of University Professors (Protecting academic freedom)

Intellectual freedom refers to the right of all people to read and seek information and to exercise free speech. Academic freedom refers to right of college and university faculty to teach and conduct research, and the right of students to learn, without government or other restrictions or censorship. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP), whose mission is to protect academic freedom, says "freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning" (1940 statement).

Types of Censorship

Definition: Direct censorship Explicit and overt suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression, often involving a clear and identifiable act of suppression by a specific authority. Examples: Book bans Blocking of websites Government restrictions on media outlets Arresting or otherwise retaliating against journalists Criminalizing certain types of speech Withholding or destroying information

Definition: Soft censorship Discouraging or limiting access to information without directly banning it. Soft censorship often operates through indirect pressure, social punishment, or economic disincentives. Examples: Self-censorship by journalists to avoid government scrutiny Librarians removing books from shelves or restricting access due to fear of challenges Professors avoiding certain research topics due to potential career repercussions Social media platforms removing or demonetizing content based on vague or subjective guidelines

Direct censorship is the explicit and overt suppression of information, while soft censorship is a more subtle form that involves discouraging or limiting access to information without outright banning it. Direct censorship includes actions like banning books, blocking websites, or arresting journalists. Soft censorship can manifest as self-censorship, where individuals or institutions avoid certain topics or perspectives to avoid potential criticism or backlash. Because direct censorship involves explicit suppression, it is visible and identifiable. Soft censorship, on the other hand, relies on indirect pressure and disincentives and can be difficult to identify and combat because it often occurs without a clear mandate or a public record. While both direct and soft censorship have the effect of limiting information, direct censorship is often motivated by a desire to control information and narratives, while soft censorship can arise from fear, self-preservation, or a desire to avoid conflict.

Restriction of access to information for children may or may not be seen as censorship. For example, many people support restricting children's access to adult materials such as explicit pornography, but restricting children's access to all information about sexuality in general is a matter of more debate. Even more controversial are attempts by parents or others to restrict access to specific information for all children.

Internet Censorship

Internet censorship may comprise restriction of information on individual internet domains, such as a company or school filtering certain websites on networked computers that are used for work at the company or for K-12 education; it may cover suppression of content that comes from outside of a particular jurisdiction, such as a nation-state blocking access to online content that doesn’t align with its government’s values, or blocking content on a topic that is highly problematic within a local social context.

Use of and support for online censorship varies widely across the globe. China has one of the most restrictive internet policies, limiting the information Chinese citizens are able to access. The Russian government has used the Russian-Ukrainian war as a rationale to increase its restrictions and censorship of online content. Freedom House’s Freedom in the World data ranks Iceland highest on "Freedom on the Net," with a score of 94 out of 100. Canada earned a score of 88/100, the United States earned 76/100, Mexico earned 61/100, Russia earned 20/100, and China earned 9/100 (Countries and Territories).

Is Restricting Mis/Disinformation Censorship?

Research conducted by the Pew Research Center found that most Americans support tech company and U.S. government restrictions on false and/or extremely violent information online (St. Aubin & Liedke, 2023). The study found that:

• 65% of Americans support tech companies moderating false information online and 55% support the U.S. government taking these steps. These shares have increased since 2018.
• Americans are even more supportive of tech companies (71%) and the U.S. government (60%) restricting extremely violent content online.
• Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of tech companies and the U.S. government restricting extremely violent content and false information online. The partisan gap in support for restricting false information has grown substantially since 2018 (St. Aubin & Liedke, 2023).

While tech companies have reduced or eliminated restrictions on mis/disinformation in recent years, Americans "were more inclined to prioritize freedom of information over restricting false information" in 2023 than in 2018 (St. Aubin & Liedke, 2023).

Are Library Selection Decisions Censorship?

Library budgets, patron needs, and other factors limit the number of books and other materials librarians can include in library collections. Generally, librarians seek to develop balanced collections that include multiple voices and points of view. But librarians, like all people, are influenced by personal and other biases. Also, soft censorship can play a part in librarians' decisions regarding which materials to purchase for library collections, particularly in libraries that have experienced book challenges.

Threats to Freedom of Speech, Intellectual and Academic Freedom, and Freedom of the Press

Below are some examples of direct censorship that reflect recent increases in censorship in the United States.

Book Bans

American Library Association data show that "the number of titles targeted for censorship surged 65 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest levels ever documented by the American Library Association (ALA)" and that "titles representing the voices and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals made up 47 percent of those targeted in censorship attempts" (American Library Association reports, 2024). In 2024, almost three quarters of censorship attempts were initiated by pressure groups and decision makers such as elected officials, while only 16% were initiated by parents and only 4% by library patrons. (The state of America's libraries, 2025, p. 10).

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): The number of book challenged in libraries has increased dramatically since 2020. (American Library Association reports, 2024)

"Each demand to ban a book is a demand to deny each person’s constitutionally protected right to choose and read books that raise important issues and lift up the voices of those who are often silenced." -- Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (American Library Association reports, 2024)

Some famous historical examples of book bans and censorship of other creative works come from the Nazi suppression and destruction of ideas, works, and information in the 1930s. Works that didn’t align with Nazi values were considered “un-German,” and works by Jewish, leftist, liberal, American, Black, LGBTQIA+ authors, artists, and more were confiscated and often destroyed. In May 1933, Nazis and their sympathizers burned over 25,000 books is multiple cities throughout Germany, prompting international outcry (Book burning).

Banned Words and Other Censorship of Government Websites

"In my lifetime, in the United States I don’t know of another situation where researchers have been this concerned about losing access to data that they’ve had access to their whole career. It's dire."

-- Jonathan Gilmour, T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University (Miller, 2025)

"While every president aims to use language that reflects its priorities in its communications, the widespread restrictions on specific words represent a dystopian effort to control what Americans think and say, despite President Trump’s lip service to '"freedom of speech and ending federal censorship.'"

-- AJ Connelly, PEN America (Connelly, 2025)

Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the federal government has made sweeping changes to the content shared on government websites, prompting scientists, archivists, advocacy groups, and employees of government agencies themselves to work to preserve existing publicly-available information about climate change, healthcare, LGBTQIA+ history, and more before it was removed (Miller, 2025; Disappearing data, 2025; Smith, 2025). As of May 2025, the federal government has flagged over 350 words for review and/or removal from government websites, including words related to race, gender, sexual orientation,identity, immigrants, diversity, affordable housing, alternative energy, social justice, bias, equity, climate change, vaccines, health, and many other topics (Connelly, 2025).

According to the free expression advocacy group PEN America, "no federal administration has moved as swiftly to exert broad new controls over what people can say, read, learn, research, and think. The heavy-handed imposition of government ideology and efforts to instill a culture of fear echo the tactics of repressive regimes, and they are having the intended effect. Across not just government agencies, but schools and universities, corporations, libraries, museums, and the media, there is already a pervasive sense that one must watch what one says in order to avoid government retaliation" (Lopez et al, 2025). Many of the administrations actions have been challenged in court for violating the First Amendment. But experts such as legal scholar Gregory P. Magarian note that the administrations actions have an impact on free expression even if they do not violate the First Amendment: "in theory, then, every new federal administration could sweepingly turn government institutions’ speech into narrow propaganda. That hasn’t happened before, perhaps because most governments realize they are just temporary custodians of an abiding republic. The Trump administration has broken this norm. The administration has ordered the purging of ideologically disfavored content from the Smithsonian museums, implemented book bans in military libraries and installed political supporters to run cultural institutions. None of those actions likely violates the First Amendment. All of them, however, have significant implications for free speech" (Magarian, 2025).

Restrictions on Teaching Black History, Racial Justice, and LGBTQIA+ Topics

"The American Library Association has joined other educational institutions and civil liberties organizations in opposing any legislative proposal or local initiative intended to ban instruction, consideration, or discussion about the role of racism in the history of the United States or how systemic racism manifests itself in our schools, workplaces, and government agencies" (ALA statement on censorship, 2021).

In a 2023 Columbia University poll, over 80% of voters "agreed that public school students should learn about the history of racism and slavery in the United States and how it continues to affect us today" and nearly 80% "agree with the idea that teaching critical thinking skills requires that teachers challenge students with alternative points of view, even those that aren’t popular and might make some uncomfortable" (Najarro, 2023). Despite public opinion, more than half of U.S. states have adopted legislation to restrict whether or how teachers can address "divisive concepts" such as race, racism, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation in their teaching. This legislation directly affects 20 million students and 1.3 million teachers (approximately 25% of U.S. teachers), but many more teachers self-censor as a result (Diliberti et al, 2024).

In 2022, Florida legislators passed HB 1557, commonly known as the "Don't Say Gay" law, "whose purpose was to 'prohibit[] classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner" (FEA et al, 2023, p. 2). North Carolina, Iowa, Indiana, and Arkansas passed similar laws in 2023 (LaFrance, 2023). Also in 2023, Florida passed HB 1069, known as the "Don't Say They" law, which "expands on the classroom instruction provisions of the 2022 law and adds sweeping new provisions prohibiting the use of pronouns consistent with one’s gender identity, expands book banning procedures, and censors health curriculum and instruction" (FEA et al, 2023, p. 2).

---

Sources

ALA statement on censorship addressing racial injustice, Black American history, and diversity education. (2021, Aug 18). American Library Association.

American Library Association reports record number of unique book titles challenged in 2023. (2024, Mar 14). American Library Association.

Book burning. (n.d.). Holocaust encyclopedia. Retrieved July 21, 2025.

Countries and territories: Freedom on the net. (n.d.). Freedom House. Retrieved July 21, 2025.

Diliberti, M.K., Steiner, E.D., & Woo, A. (2024, May 16). 7 takeaways on how teachers are reacting to restrictions on discussing race and gender. Brookings Institute.

Disappearing data: Trump administration removing climate information from government websites. (2025, Feb 6). National Security Archive.

FEA, AFT, & NEA. (2023, June). What you need to know about Florida’s “don’t say gay” and “don’t say they” laws, book bans, and other curricula restrictions. NEA.

First Amendment and censorship. (2021, Oct). American Library Association.

The First Amendment: Freedom of speech, religion, and the press. (2024, July 26). FindLaw.

Freedom of the press: What's at stake. (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union.

Hate crimes. (n.d.). FBI. Retrieved July 16, 2025.

Hate speech and hate crime. (n.d.). American Library Association. Retrieved July 16, 2025.

Image: Censorship man newspaper read news by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Intellectual freedom. (n.d.). American Library Association. Retrieved July 16, 2025.

LaFrance, S. (2023, Aug 31). It’s not just Florida: 4 new "don't Say Gay" laws passed in 2023. PEN America.

Library bill of rights. (2019, Jan 29). American Library Association.

Lopez, S., Friedman, J., Harris, H., & Gerntholtz, L. (2025, Apr 9). A five-alarm fire for free speech: The Trump administration’s 100 Day assault on free expression. PEN America.

Magarian, G.P. (2025, June 2). 3 ways the government can silence opinions it disagrees with, without using censorship. The Conversation.

Miller, N.S. (2025, Jan 31). Researchers rush to preserve federal health databases before they disappear from government websites. The Journalist's Resource.

Najarro, I. (2023, Oct 30). Many states are limiting how schools can teach about race. Most voters disagree. Education Week.

1940 statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure with 1970 interpretive comments. (n.d.) American Association of University Professors. Retrieved July 16, 2025.

Protecting academic freedom. (n.d.). American Association of University Professors.

St. Aubin, C. & Liedke, J. (2023, July 20). Most Americans favor restrictions on false information, violent content online. Pew Research Center.

Smith, C. (2025, Feb 13). Hundreds of LGBTQI+ resources censored by the Trump administration. Center for American Progress.

The state of America's libraries: A snapshot of 2024. (2025). American Library Association.

United Nations strategy and plan of action on hate speech. (n.d.). United Nations.

Universal declaration of human rights. (1948, Dec 10). United Nations.