SafeLibraries®: Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative

Sunday, December 21, 2025

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the “Censorship” Narrative

by Mary Library

Mary in the Library Michigan

21 December 2025

The recent alarm sounded by the American Library Association (ALA), PEN America, and their coalition partners paints a picture of a dystopian landscape where books are being snatched from the hands of eager young readers. However, this narrative relies on a fundamental redefinition of terms and a refusal to acknowledge the core concern of American families: the safeguarding of children from s[*]xually explicit material and age-inappropriate ideologies in taxpayer-funded institutions.

What these organizations label a “censorship crisis” is, in reality, a crisis of accountability. For decades, public education and library systems have operated with little oversight, introducing materials regarding gender ideology and s[*]xual practices that many communities find deeply objectionable for minors. Now that parents are exercising their democratic right to oversee their children’s education, these institutions are crying foul.

Here is a look at the reality behind the trends cited in their report:

Reframing “Bans”: Curation is Not Censorship

The central fallacy in the ALA and PEN America report is the misuse of the word “ban.” In a free society, a ban implies that the government has prohibited the publication, sale, or possession of a book. That is not happening in the United States. Every book currently challenged in a school library remains available on Amazon, at Barnes & Noble, and often in the public library down the street.

When a school board decides that a graphic novel depicting oral s[*]x is not appropriate for a middle school library, that is not a ban; it is curation. Libraries have always practiced curation. They have finite shelf space and budgets. For years, progressive librarians have “curated” out books they deemed “outdated” or “culturally insensitive.” Yet, when parents demand the removal of books containing graphic s[*]xual content, it is suddenly labeled an attack on democracy. This double standard exposes that the issue is not about the freedom to read, but about what is being prioritized for children.

The “Soft Censorship” and “Weeding” Myth

The report claims that “weeding” is being maliciously misused by parents. However, weeding is a standard tool for maintaining a healthy collection. The report complains about the removal of books with “diverse representation or s[*]x-related content,” but fails to mention that these are often the very books containing the explicit material parents are objecting to.

If a book is found to contain p[*]rnography or radical political indoctrination disguised as education, it should be weeded. The complaint that “preemptive bans” are problematic ignores the concept of fiscal responsibility. Why should a school district waste taxpayer money purchasing titles that violate state laws regarding obscenity or age-appropriateness, only to have to remove them later? “Do not buy” lists are a sensible administrative tool to ensure collections remain compliant with community standards and the law.

Accountability Laws: Protecting Students, Not Banning Books

The report criticizes laws in Texas (SB 13), Florida, and Utah as “censorship-driven.” In reality, these are transparency and accountability laws.

Transparency: Laws requiring book lists to be posted for 30 days allow parents—the primary stakeholders in a child’s education—to see what is entering the school.

Compliance: The use of AI to scan collections is a logical response to the sheer volume of material. If a district has thousands of books, and state law prohibits s[*]xually explicit content, using technology to flag potential violations is an efficiency measure, not a nefarious plot.

The “chilling effect” described by the ALA is actually the feeling of accountability returning to a profession that has long operated without it. If librarians fear penalties for distributing “harmful materials to minors,” the solution is simple: do not distribute harmful materials to minors.

The Role of Federal and State Leadership

The report attacks the Trump Administration’s Executive Orders regarding “gender ideology” and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion). This criticism ignores the mandate given by voters. The 2024 and 2025 elections showed a clear rejection of the progressive cultural agenda in schools.

Schools are funded to teach reading, writing, math, and civics—not to serve as laboratories for social engineering. Executive orders and state laws that restrict the promotion of Critical Race Theory or gender fluidity are not “anti-educational”; they are a restoration of neutrality. They ensure that public institutions do not undermine the values of the families they serve.

“Parents’ Rights” is Not a Rhetorical Guise

Perhaps the most dismissive aspect of the joint statement is the framing of “parents’ rights “as mere rhetoric used to advance censorship. The right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and moral development of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Supreme Court.

When the Florida Freedom to Read Project or the ALA claims that “most parents” oppose these removals, they often rely on broad polls that ask generic questions like, “Do you oppose book banning?” When parents are shown the actual excerpts from the books in question—passages detailing incest, pedophilia, and graphic s[*]xual acts—support for removing these books from school’s skyrockets.

Conclusion

The “censorship crisis” of 2025 is a manufactured panic designed to protect the gatekeepers of culture from the people they serve. The trends identified—state oversight, parental involvement, and the removal of inappropriate materials—are not attacks on democracy. They are democracy in action.

Local school boards are elected. Legislatures are elected. When these bodies act to remove p[*]rnographic or ideologically driven content from K-12 schools, they are fulfilling the will of the voters. The freedom to read is safe in America; what is ending is the era where public institutions could bypass the values of the American family without consequence.