The document discusses the concepts of censorship and intellectual freedom within public libraries, defining censorship as a change in access to material based on content and emphasizing that censorship is incompatible with intellectual freedom, which allows individuals to seek information from various perspectives. It highlights the challenges librarians face regarding content restrictions, particularly with legal pornography and internet filtering, and examines the implications of these policies on public access to information. Furthermore, it stresses the importance of balancing censorship with the need for intellectual freedom to ensure communities benefit from diverse ideas and resources.

1. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 1
Censorship and Intellectual Freedom at the Public Library
Kyle Guzik
University of Southern Mississippi

2. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 2
Censorship and Intellectual Freedom
The American Library Association (ALA) (2016) defines censorship as a “change in the
access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or
its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level
changes” (para 2). Intellectual Freedom may be defined as:
the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of
view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas
through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be explored
(ALA, 2016, para 2).
Censorship and intellectual freedom are thus mutually incompatible. Any act of censorship is a
violation of intellectual freedom. Censorship may be understood in terms of two different types
“(1) regulative and (2) constitutive (or existential) censorship (Steele, 2018, 231). Regulative
censorship is the more familiar and visible type. In this type of censorship, individuals or groups
perceive specific ideas as harmful- harmful to religion, the state, morality, etc. Constitutive
censorship is caused by the state or the market to hide, subvert, or deny access to information
(Steele, 2018, 231). Consider the way that online retailers make it difficult to find the lowest price
of an item or type of item or promote their own brand of a product over another brand that may
have invented the product first. One might interpret this simply as the online retail search tool not
working correctly when this activity is intentional. This form of censorship is hidden and perhaps
more dangerous as a result.
Steele (2018) analyzed library censorship in terms of gatekeeping theory. Gatekeeping
theory can be used to describe how information travels through communication channels to reach
the public. In public libraries information messages such as books or internet content flow through

3. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 3
communication channels. Steele explains the “path a book takes from the author to the public can
be thought of as a communication channel” (234). Communication channels are connected via
gates, which allow or prevent information to pass through. A public “library’s collection
development policy can act as a gate and be a deciding factor regarding a material being added to
the library’s collection or not” (Steele, 2016). Gates can be controlled by gatekeepers such as a
collection development librarian who decides whether to acquire a book for their library’s
collection. In public libraries information flows from sender to receiver. Steele (2018) argues that
this is a closed system with no feedback in the opposite direction. One might argue that regulative
censorship is a form of feedback. For example, a community member could argue that a book is
harmful and petition successfully to have it removed from the library. However, removal of this
book from the library will not necessarily provide any information to the content creator. Instead,
it is a form of feedback to a gatekeeper who has the ability to remove the book.
Censorship may be understood in terms of levels of analysis from the most finite at the
individual level to communication routines, organizations, social institutions, and the most
expansive, social systems (Steele, 2016). At the individual level, public librarian characteristics
influence whether information is allowed to flow through the gate. At this level, a public librarian
of a particular political or religious identity might choose not to select a book due to their personal
beliefs. Communication routines such as “implicit norms” could also prevent information flow; a
public librarian could be following an “established pattern of behavior” in book selection that
allows some books through but not others. Public library policies, such as policies on internet
filtering function at the organizational level of analysis. Social institutions such as library boards
or government officials can also act as censors. The highest level of censorship analysis concerns
social systems. This could include challenges to a book that is purported to be incongruent with a

4. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 4
community’s “way of life” (Steele, 2016, 244). For example, books on “Islamic religion and
culture” could be challenged in a community that is “predominantly Christian” (Steel, 2016, 244).
Censorship can thus be understood as a complex process with myriad factors influencing whether
a public library allows information to reach the public.
Public Libraries and Intellectual Freedom
Rubin and Rubin (2020) explain that intellectual freedom was not always a priority for
public libraries: “Throughout most of the nineteenth century and most of the first half of the
twentieth, librarians perceived themselves primarily as preservers of the public good and protectors
of the predominant social mores” (498). Libraries existed for the intellectual and moral
improvement of patrons. When libraries did include “popular” reading material in their
collections, the intention was to attract patrons to books of “higher quality (Rubin & Rubin. 2020,
498). With the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s librarians responded to the horrors of book
burning with a new emphasis on intellectual freedom. In 1939 the ALA developed the Library
Bill of Rights “that provided guidance and important ethical foundations for supporting open
access to library materials and resisting censorship” (Rubin & Rubin, 2020, 498). The Library Bill
of Right consists of seven statements about right and freedoms that should be protected by libraries,
notably in relation to censorship: Article III “Libraries should challenge censorship in the
fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment,” and Article IV
“Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of
free expression and free access to ideas” (ALA, 2019, paras. 4-5). In 1940 the ALA founded the
Intellectual Freedom Committee (ILC), its purpose was to “collect data on censorship attempts, to
recommend policies concerning intellectual freedom issues, and to promote intellectual freedom

5. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 5
among librarians” (Rubin & Rubin, 2020, 498). These reforms demonstrate the commitment in
codification and institutional commitment of the ALA to support intellectual freedom.
Rubin and Rubin (2020) identify three factors that promote information access and
intellectual freedom: “the need to educate future generations”, “professional standards”, and “the
obligation to protect the rights of citizens in a democratic society” (502-503). Many censorship
claims involve the idea that certain types of content are harmful to minors. However, the argument
that “children and youth who are free to explore ideas become healthy adults and better-educated
citizens” supports the concept of intellectual freedom in public libraries for both children and
adults (Rubin & Rubin, 2020, 502). Most public libraries balance intellectual freedom with the
right of parents to decide what is best for their own children by adopting policies that let parents
decide what information to restrict. Professional standards, imparted to librarians by “formal
education and on-the-job training” make a distinction between selecting and censorship (Rubin &
Rubin, 2020, 503). Selectors find reasons to acquire and keep books, looking for benefits such as
an alternative point of view or intellectual merit that overcome potential objections to the content.
Censors seek out flaws in books- often for ideological reasons. The choice of the censor is to reject
books that contain any content objectionable to the censor, regardless of any redeeming qualities
of the books. Professional standards and ethics encourage librarians to act as selectors and not as
censors. Finally, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishes both the right to free
expression of their ideas and the right to access ideas created by others. This right provides critical
support for the establishment and operation of public libraries in the U.S. Democracies cannot
function without freedom of speech so public libraries play an important role in protecting this
right.

6. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 6
Benefits and Disadvantages of Restricting Access to Information
If censorship is defined as the opposite of intellectual freedom and any restriction placed
on public access to information is considered a form of censorship then one might make the
argument that no form of censorship should be allowed, ever. However, the issue is not so clear-
cut. Individuals have a right to privacy. It is unreasonable to argue that all information belonging
to an individual including family photos, bank account information, Google search history, etc.
should be open and available for public inspection. Some content, such as child pornography, is
illegal and the state should undertake law enforcement actions to prevent its production and
distribution. The state also has classified secrets that it does not want to share. There is debate
over how much information should be classified but few would argue that information such as the
names and locations of government agents working on life or death operations or the source code
of our anti-ballistic missile defense system should be publicly available for our foreign adversaries
to peruse. Thus, there are positive and negative arguments for some forms of censorship.
In this essay, we will focus on one such debate. It is highly controversial whether legal
pornography should be accessible in public libraries. This information is legal and Americans
have the right to access it but are libraries obligated to provide free access to legal pornography?
The 2001 Children's Internet Protection Act requires that all public and school libraries use
filters to “block or filter visual content that is obscene, child pornography, or deemed
harmful to minors” (Edlund, 2020, 59). If libraries fail to comply they lose valuable
Library Services and Technology Act and Universal Service Discount funding (Edlund,
2020, 59). CIPA was challenged unsuccessfully on First Amendment grounds by the ALA
and is current law. This created a problem for public libraries. Adult patrons still had the
right to view legal pornography, but minors needed to be prevented from accessing it.

7. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 7
Libraries were required to put filtering software on computers that minors could use;
however, in many cases, adults also used the same computers. Even if this problem was
surmounted most of the space in a public library is public, minors might still see adults
viewing legal pornography. When library budgets are limited is it reasonable to spend
funds on an “adults only” internet use area? An additional complication is that internet
search filters are imperfect. They do not block all objectionable content, but they also
block content that is clearly not legal pornography. (ALA, 2015, para. 3). Information
regarding sexual health or human sexuality could also be blocked. Should an LGBT teen
who is looking for scientific or cultural information regarding sexual orientation to better
understand their identity be prevented from accessing this information. Again, some would
answer yes and others no.
Edlund (2020) studied the issue with a survey of public librarians and found variations in
the beliefs of public librarians and the policies of public libraries regarding legal pornography and
its restriction. In practice, what policies do public libraries enforce when a patron is viewing legal
pornography on a library computer:
Participants who received complaints (n=56) were asked to describe actions taken.
Some chose to not answer, resulting in 53 explanations. Most respondents’
reactions to first-time incidents fell into several broad categories: pornography
viewers were asked to stop or issued warnings (with escalations of repercussions
possible); complaining patrons were informed pornography was permitted, and
both parties were accommodated; pornography viewers were removed from public
computers; pornography viewers were asked to leave; pornography viewers were
banned on a permanent or temporary basis. (Edlund, 2020, 66).

8. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 8
Library policies and the interpretations of individual librarians are inconsistent; some
librarians do not even know what their library’s computer use policy regarding legal
pornography is.
Two ALA documents (ALA Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights) directly
address the conundrum of internet filtering and protecting minors from content viewed as
objectionable, or from illegal content. The first concerns “internet filtering” (ALA, 2015).
The second concerns “minors and online activity” (ALA, 2009). The ALA identifies
multiple problems with CIPA mandated filtering. Content filter algorithms are still unable
to adequately interpret text, images, and videos to the extent that their success rate in
removing sexually explicit materials is often no greater than chance (ALA, 2015).
Libraries use internet filtering software that is designed and maintained by private
companies. This causes libraries to spend resources and cede control over library functions
and decision-making to unaccountable private interests. Mandated filtering in public
libraries also “has widened the divide between those who can afford to pay for personal
access and those who must depend on publicly funded (and filtered) access” (ALA, 2015,
para. 8). The ALA (2009) notes that minors derive many benefits from access to the
internet; for example, they “learn about and organize social, civic, recreational, and
academic activities” (para. 2). Internet filters that block minors from using social media,
because these sites may contain objectionable content, limit their ability to participate in
social interaction, civic engagement, and freedom of expression.
Conclusion
Censorship and intellectual freedom are mutually incompatible. However, an
absolutist viewpoint in favor of one or the other exclusively can lead to disturbing

9. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 9
consequences. Total control by the state, a corporation, or a nongovernmental organization
such as a church over the flow of information in a society can lead to fascist abominations
like book burning, or an equally insidious hidden form of censorship in which powerful
interests hide information from the light of public inquiry and investigation. Unlike book
burning this second form of censorship is by its nature unseen and thus more difficult to
find and root out. At the same time, there are legitimate reasons to regulate access to
information such as when that information could cause harm to someone who is protected
by state-enforced secrecy, or when the information itself is illegal such as ransomware
programs or child pornography. Censorship actions by public libraries should not be
undertaken lightly. Even in cases, such as restricting public access to legal pornography,
where the case for censorship at first seems obvious, unintended consequences can result
that reduce intellectual freedom. Public libraries have limited funds and they must make
choices that best use the resources available to them for the benefit of the communities they
serve.

10. Censorship and Intellectual Freedom 10
References:
American Library Association. (2006). Library Bill of Rights.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill (Accessed June 14, 2021). Document
ID: 669fd6a3-8939-3e54-7577-996a0a3f8952
American Library Association. (2009). Minors and Online Activity: An Interpretation of the
Library Bill of Rights.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minorsonlineactivity
(Accessed June 14, 2021). Document ID: 91dbd501-f511-c734-995a-2e17642cc87f
American Library Association. (2015). Internet Filtering: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of
Rights. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/internet-
filtering (Accessed June 14, 2021). Document ID: 8ac0b7a7-f70e-3c44-99c4-
2f92829071fc
American Library Association. (2016). Challenge Support.
http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport.
Edlund, H. (2020). An analysis of American public libraries’ policies on patron use of Internet
pornography. Open Information Science, 4(1), 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2020-
0005
Rubin, R., Rubin, R. G., & Alire, C. A. (2020). Foundations of library and information science
(5th ed.). American Library Association. Neal-Schuman.
Steele, J. (2018). Censorship of Library Collections: An Analysis Using Gatekeeping
Theory. Collection Management, 43(4), 229–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01462679.2018.1512917