SafeLibraries®

Sunday, May 24, 2026

PEN America Fakes School Book Bans in The Hill; Pico-Violative Material May Be Removed Legally

PEN America fakes school book bans and almost everything else in The Hill.

Below I republish the entire opinion piece, then intercalate what's really going on.

"False Stories of 'P[*]rn in Schools' are Decoys for Book Bans," opinion editorial by Kasey Meehan (director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program), The Hill, 2 May 2026, hyperlinks omitted.

In 2021, alarming accusations of "p[*]rn in schools" — sounded by the conservative Florida Citizens Alliance in its 2021 P[*]rn in Schools Report and later championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) — spread like lice in a classroom.

[FALSE - "Lice in a classroom" already sounds disgusting, sounds like a real horror show. It's a manipulative statement to make, and here it is in sentence one. It puts the agitation in agitprop. "Alarming accusations" is more agitprop. REALITY - Inappropriate books are numerous in school libraries as a direct result of over 60 years of effort by American Library Association to eliminate parental rights and eliminate the application of various laws and US Supreme Court cases like Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), that allows schools to immediately remove pervasively vulgar and educationally unsuitable school books, often referenced in short as "p[*]rn in schools." The "alarming accusations" are simply parents who have become aware of Pico-violative material in school libraries and who seek redress of their government under constitutional state and federal law to have such material removed per the law.]

The so-called p[*]rn targeted by the report was not AI deepfakes or internet sites, but books for children and teenagers. Shockingly, its false message took hold far and wide.

[FALSE - "The so-called p[*]rn" is a manipulative tactic to use language to sway how people think. More agitprop. The "p[*]rn" is actually Pico-violative material and may be constitutionally removed immediately from shelves. So it's not "so-called." It's an actual problem reworded as "so-called p[*]rn" to give the impression that there's no p[*]rn in school libraries, and there isn't, but there definitely is Pico-violative material and it can be and has been removed from schools. PEN America wants to put an end to that by manipulating how people think about the issue to the point where no one thinks Pico applies anymore. So it's a cleverly worded phrase that sounds good but leaves out the truth. Again, agitprop. The truth is Pico-violative material is legally removable under the law. So it's not "so-called p[*]rn," it's material that violates the Pico case, and it may be removed immediately from public schools. If PEN America's agitprop is accepted as truth, not a single book will ever be removed from any school library. We know that is false. So we are not going to fall for PEN America's agitprop.]

Now, Congress is seizing on that fear with the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act [HR 7661], which would withhold federal money to schools and libraries over books and materials with what its sponsors determine to be "s[*]xually oriented material".

[FALSE - "seizing on that fear." After PEN America set up the straw man, namely, p[*]rn in schools, it then attacks the straw man and calls opposition to it "fear." More agitprop. But at least PEN America didn't echo the American Library Association lie that the Act is called the "Book Banning Bill." The agitprop continues in the same sentence. "What its sponsors determine to be 's[*]xually oriented material'" is another way to say trust the school librarians who say anything goes, there are no limits, rather than an entire legislature that, stung by American Library Association rules applied by school libraries that have filled school libraries with Pico-violative material, have decided to explicitly oppose "s[*]xually oriented material." It's not a "fear" of inappropriate material in school libraries, it's a reality, and it's a reality that groups like PEN America want to lie to the public and to legislators (hence the opinion piece in The Hill) that no books may ever be removed from school libraries
—whatever ALA from Chicago says goes—in every school nationwide. Something ever more subtle is a lie about HR 7661 that might withhold federal money over "s[*]xually oriented material" and how it's bad to withhold money for learning First, there's a major case ALA lost on that very point, but in the context of internet filtering in libraries: United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003). The Court plurality found the government has the right to withhold funding if the libraries did not use internet filtering against inappropriate material. The Court found, "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree." Yes, it's common sense, but PEN American wants people to get over any concern for any common sense so as to mislead people into allowing children access to inappropriate material—on the public dime, no less. Second, Illinois Public Act 103-0100, drafted by ALA and called the "Right to Read Act" or the "Freedom to Read Act," explicitly adopts ALA's "Library Bill of Rights," and explicitly takes away state grants if school don't adopt ALA's aspirational creed by name or by substance. So denying money to drive compliance with ALA diktat is okay when it ensures school kids continue to get "s[*]xually oriented material." Third, ALA redefined what's "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors" as "diverse materials ... about inclusion." So when PEN America speaks about it being wrong to deny funding for "s[*]xually oriented material," they essentially define it as "diverse materials ... about inclusion." All together, PEN America is misleading people to thing it's wrong to do what the US Supreme Court already allowed and what even ALA itself already allowed, only in the opposite sense where state funding was withheld if schools did not allow children access to inappropriate material. It's another ALA double standard.]

Source: youtu.be/XvD_gg1fQXI

In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book that contains p[*]rnography. Why? Because distributing p[*]rnography in schools is a felony that can carry a prison term. Of the thousands we've seen removed from classrooms and school libraries supposedly for p[*]rn, none meet the legal or even informal definition.

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place. It completely misses the mark, intentionally so, with the intention to mislead people into allowing school librarians to continue exposing school children to harm formulated over 60 years ago by Chicago's American Library Association. By the way, the last USA book ban was in 1963. So "In five years of recording book bans across the country, my organization, PEN America, hasn't come across a banned book" is inadvertently truthful. But now I have a primary source to say in five years of checking, PEN America hasn't found a single book ban. Welcome to reality, PEN America! Further, another straw man argument: "none meet the legal or even informal definition" of p[*]rnography. That's irrelevant. Pico did not address p[*]rnography. The issue is pervasively vulgarity and educational unsuitability. P[*]rnography makes a great straw man argument though.]

We have found that, overwhelmingly, books wrongly identified as p[*]rn represent gay and transgender characters and themes, depict race, racism, s[*]xual experiences that do not constitute p[*]rn and themes that may be challenging, even uncomfortable, like gun violence and s[*]xual abuse.

[FALSE - this entire paragraph relies on the first that set up the "p[*]rn in schools" lie in the first place. In reality, such books listed comprise Pico-violative material and as such may be removed immediately from public school libraries. The issue is whether the material violates Pico. PEN America intentionally confuses people by adding in factors that are entirely irrelevant to a Pico determination. The Pico Court did not rule that inappropriate material may be removed unless it deals with s[*]xuality, racism, gun violence, and s[*]x abuse, then it stays in the library no matter what. That was not the Court's decision. But it's what PEN America wants people to think. More agitprop.]

Book banners promise that removing these books will keep kids safe from supposedly scary, criminal and harmful stories.

[FALSE - "Book banners." They just said they didn't see any book bans after checking for five years. Now the parents who complain are smeared as "book banners." Not a single parent anywhere ever banned any school book. They have the legal right to ask a school board for redress of a concern, and it's the school board that may apply the Pico case, never any parent. So to call all parents "book banners" it just more agitprop from PEN America.]

We disagree. Books and storytelling are an essential part of public education.

[TRUE in principle, FALSE in application - but Pico-violative material has been legally excluded by the US Supreme Court from being "an essential part of public education." Indeed, the Pico case allows for various works to be removed and removed immediately. After all, it's common sense. Calling all parents "book banners" is an effort at language contamination intended to mislead people into simple ignoring the Pico case and substituting instead the judgment of Chicago's American Library Association. Now who do you trust more, the US Supreme Court or the Chicago American Library Association?]

We oppose book bans and advocate for access to diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences or introduce new worlds, identities, histories and perspectives.

[FALSE - This is the most massive lie so far because, while it sounds legitimate, it is based on unseen material PEN America doesn't disclose, and intentionally so. Access to "diverse reading materials" sounds legitimate, and even compelling. But what PEN America doesn't disclose is that the definition of "diverse reading materials" means something completely different than what anyone thinks. It's a huge deception. Pure agitprop. PEN America did not disclose that American Library Association changed the definition of "diverse reading material" to explicitly include "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors." The then top lawyer for American Library Association provided training to librarians that changed the meaning of "diverse reading materials" to "s[*]xually inappropriate material for minors." In full, here is what was said by the ALA lawyer during the training,

But ultimately, we found that the thing that needs to happen most, and it needs to happen before these bills are introduced, is sustained uh messaging that reframes this issue um that uh that takes it away from the idea that these are inappropriate for minors, or s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, and promotes them as diverse materials and programming that are about inclusion, fairness, and protection of everybody's right to see themselves, and their families reflected in the books in the public library.

So when PEN America says they "advocate for access to diverse reading materials," which sounds legitimate, what is meant is, "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors, ... promote[d] ... as diverse materials." That's what PEN America is deceptively hiding. All in an effort to convince people to expose more school children to more "diverse reading materials that reflect lived experiences" that has been reframed to that from "s[*]xually inappropriate for minors." It's truly disgusting, and here it is in The Hill to attempt to fool the Washington, DC, legislators—so more kids will be harmed by ALA.]

Laney Hawes, co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project, once said: "Fear is effective." Nothing is truer in the book banning crisis. A fear of p[*]rnography morphed into a fear of diversity, equity and inclusion, of educators and librarians supposedly indoctrinating kids and ultimately, of transgender and genderqueer kids themselves. Fear has led to laws, policies and executive orders about material in schools being "harmful to minors" or "s[*]xually explicit."

[FALSE - Laney Hawes is not the co-founder of the Texas Freedom to Read Project. That group was created by American Library Association as a local ALA affiliate, built in such as way as to give the appearance of being a local advocacy group. Here's PEN America repeating the lie. The reality is ALA has set up hundreds of local ALA groups nationwide, all of them called "grassroots," while none are grassroots and all were ALA created. It's bragged about by ALA leadership. It's stated in 990 tax forms submitted to the federal government. Sometimes the groups themselves inadvertently acknowledge ALA's involvement publicly. Yet here's PEN America talking about it like it's some grassroots group. It isn't. It's a ALA-created local ALA office. And look, she spread the ALA message: "fear is effective." Well lying is effective too, Laney, and you're lying. In reality, school libraries are suffused with inappropriate material that could be removed under Pico. You and PEN America want to keep it all on the shelves. Then PEN America goes on with the "book banning crisis." There's no book banning, and the "crisis" is that parents have finally woken up to the Pico-violative material filling school libraries, and American Library Association is trying to stifle that, and PEN America partnered with ALA to mislead people about Pico in Unite Against Book Bans. There's your crisis. It's that the people harming the kids are finally getting noticed by the parents and thereby the legislators. That's the crisis. So it's not a crisis, it's a healthy reaction by parents after they finally became aware of the harm being done intentionally to school children by ALA-trained school librarians. The rest of the paragraph talks about the "fear of p[*]rnography." So right there two lies are mashed together into one giant lie. The remainder of that paragraph expands on that giant lie.]

My organization has documented how vague language leads to overcompliance and sweeping restrictions on all types of books. If this new bill in Congress passes, will schools be afraid to buy Maurice Sendak's children's classic, "In the Night Kitchen" because of young Mikey's nudity? Or Michael Hall's "Red: A Crayon's Story," with its messages about acceptance often applying to gender and s[*]xuality?

[FALSE - here PEN America adopts the research of American Library Association that proves if you talk about innocuous books instead of the ones really at issue, then you can fool a lot more people. The Sendak case, for example, is innocuous and involves librarians, not parents, who drew underpants on a child character. It's blown up by ALA and PEN America into a giant cause célèbre. Hence Kasey Meehan used it in her op ed for the politicians to see and blindly believe. It's a little nothing case committed by a few librarians. But the books about teaching kids how to use Grindr to meet a man for a night, that's not the book PEN America used as an example. It's pure manipulation, and it's based on focus group testing by ALA to maximize the indoctrination and s[*]xualization of children. It's agitprop.]

And although the bill includes exemptions for a list of "classics" identified by Compass Classroom — developed as homeschooling teaching tool for a Bible-based perspective — modern classics like Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and Toni Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye" are not exempted. These books would likely land on a no-purchase list due to depictions of s[*]xual violence. Most explicitly, the bill would block the purchase of books about transgender people, censoring titles like Ami Polonsky's tale about a transgender 12-year-old, "Gracefully Grayson."

[FALSE - "modern classics." First, ALA focus group tested talking about "classics" as more effective to move people than being honest about reality. Second, there is no "modern classics" exemption to Pico-violative material. If it violates Pico, it's out, even if it's a "modern classic." And "transgender people"? That's a ridiculous lie. There's no such thing as a transgender person. No person has ever been nor will ever be transgender. It's a harmful lie, harmful to children most particularly, and recent medical studies have quantified the harm, and it's quite significant. Why does PEN America promote harmful material to children? Why is it trying to mislead Washington DC legislators into allowing this harm. It's Pico-violative material. It could definitely be removed, and immediately. There's no such thing as "a transgender 12-year-old." Everyone knows that, even PEN America. But it's useful as an excuse to promote more harm to more children. That's what PEN America is doing writing this opinion piece in The Hill in the first place.]

This bill would mean school districts across the country that reject book censorship would be thrust into this maelstrom. Just this week, over 100 organizations urged people who care about education, books, young readers and libraries to call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote against this bill.

[FALSE - it's just more manipulative language based on the lies and merged lies from above. This time the word "censorship" is thrown into the mix. Again, the meaning of the word has been intentionally changed by American Library Association so that it no longer means censorship. And the "over 100 organizations"? All are ALA, created by ALA, or partners with ALA.]

Misleading tales of p[*]rnography and dangerous books, librarians and teachers are false narratives that have been woven in community after community, affecting the quality of education kids receive. But the more you read, the more you are able to spot an unreliable narrator claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there. That narrator presents contradictory and inconsistent messages, where logic is absent and truth is hidden.

[FALSE - same lies as above, but look at "woven in community after community." ALA creates hundreds of local ALA offices nationwide and calls them "grassroots," while in an act of pure projection, "false narratives" have been "woven in community after community." So now agitprop works? "Logic is absent and truth is hidden"? Seriously? PEN America (and ALA) never discloses the logic and always hides the truth. For example, despite my repeated attempts, PEN America's leader refused to debate me on these issues. The invitation is still open, Kasey Meehan. Indeed, you will never see anyone at PEN America ever engage in debate with a parent like me, precisely because the truth is hidden, and PEN America (and ALA) intend to keep it that way. So while parents get the blame from PEN America as "unreliable narrator[s] claiming there is p[*]rn when it is not there," the reality is it's PEN America that's unreliable and continues to hide the truth by refusing to debate the issue publicly. By the way, as to hiding the truth, librarians are trained to hide the truth. It happens frequently, but just days ago Kelly Jensen published this about using subversion or direct activism to promote potentially harmful material to children—and librarians should no longer be considered "trusted experts":

Among the suggestions below, you’ll have easy-to-implement and manage ideas, alongside some that will likely need to be done more subversively. Maybe subversively isn’t the word, honestly. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is that some of these suggestions may bring direct activism into the picture in a way that has not always been common in public libraries.

Speaking of Kelly Jensen, let's get back to "unreliable narrators."]

Unreliable narrators like DeSantis conceal a larger agenda to weaken public schools in favor of vouchers and private school options as outlined in Project 2025. Others, such as outraged parents who see book excerpts taken out of context on Facebook, campaign to remove them, even though there is no evidence at all that reading books causes harm.

[FALSE - the "unreliable narrator" lie is now so big that PEN America applies it to the Governor of Florida. Essentially, anyone who disagrees with indoctrinating and s[*]xualizing school children right in their schools using taxpayer money is labeled an "unreliable narrator" by one of the very groups seeking to maintain its grip on people so they continue to harm children as PEN America wants but can't force them to do, unless they first lie to the people so they think what PEN America wants them to think. Again, agitprop. Again, to harm kids.]

Meanwhile, students, parents, teachers, librarians and authors resist the efforts to remove books from schools. These more reliable narrators spread the message that books aren't harmful, and the opposite is true. Studies have demonstrated that reading, particularly reading for fun, helps advance critical thinking skills, academic achievement and empathy, and reduces stress.

[FALSE - all those people were all activated by American Library Association into doing what ALA wants and has been working to achieve for over 60 years. PEN America wants people to think the "book banners" are in the minority. The reality is the people seeking to keep children from Pico-violative material are the vast majority, and the minority is the Chicago ALA and all the people it has already convinced into harming school children. We heard about "unreliable narrators" before. Now we hear about "reliable narrators" who somehow agree Pico-violative material is just fine for kids, we don't need Pico, we don't need obscenity laws, we don't need common sense and community standards, we just need kids to read anything approved by ALA—so anything, anything at all, even the books about sneaking behind your parents back to score a man for a night. And "empathy." Don't get me started. As if PEN America trying to harm more children cares a whit about empathy, another word that has been given a new definition that has nothing to do with empathy.

And "reliable narrators"? American Library Association published last year a movie call "The Librarians." It has huge even laughable lies in it. It quotes Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, talking about don't join the book burners. It leaves off what he says after a comma where he essentially said matters of decency should be the only form of censorship. No kidding! The laughable deception is when a librarian shown only in the shadows for dramatic effect is finally revealed—in the last 30 seconds of the movie before the credits roll. You immediately feel you've been had. Even the promo poster features the hidden character gimmick. So "reliable narrators" is what they want you to think, not the actual reality that is quite the opposite. In full disclosure, I appear uncredited in the film.]

A colleague and I previously wrote how learning about s[*]x in a romantasy novel or through s[*]x education doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous. It instead offers information about consent and healthy relationships, keeping young people safer.

[FALSE - PEN America just lied to us over and over again, then merged the lies and made them bigger. Can we definitely trust PEN America that kids reading Pico-violative material "doesn't make kids s[*]xually promiscuous"? No. If PEN America is saying that, the exact opposite is true. There's no "consent and healthy relationships" exception to Pico. "Keeping young people safer" is another lie that sounds good, but not when the true meaning of the phrase to PEN America is revealed. But don't worry, PEN America doesn't do interviews with anyone who potentially might disagree.]

Students want the right to read freely, and most parents want that for their kids too. It's also okay to be offended, shocked or scared by a book. But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives.

[FALSE - that last sentence just completely eliminates Pico. Eliminates obscenity laws. Eliminates community standards. Eliminates common sense. Everyone everywhere protects children from harm—except school librarians. Now why is that? "But the response should never be to remove access to reading or to ban themes, identities and perspectives." Hey, Kasey Meehan, ever heard of Pico? Did you know it has resulted in the removal from schools of many books? Better yet, will you debate me publicly?

And "most parents want that for their kids too" is an ALA-polled lie. When Harris or Rasmussen runs a poll, then most parents oppose explicit books in public schools. But ALA asked the question in a why that gave them the desired answer, and here's PEN America reeling it off like it's the truth.]

Reading for fun among children declined by 40 percent over the last two decades. Now more than ever, we need more readers, especially those who can spot an unreliable narrator.

[FALSE - And this lie is a wow. She is now implying that children should be able to determine when their own parents are "unreliable narrators" so they should be ignored. Eliminating parental rights is the 60 plus year goal of ALA. Now it is also the goal of PEN America, and there it is in black and white. I'm certain the school board in Escambia County, FL, that PEN America is suing will be interested in learning this.]

Kasey Meehan is director of PEN America's Freedom to Read program.

By the way, the readers of The Hill aren't buying it: