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 For years, progressive librarians have “curated” out books they deemed “outdated” or “culturally insensitive.”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.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive 

new posts and support my work.

NOTE:  Above originally published here:

• "Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: A Rebuttal to the 'Censorship' Narrative," by Mary Library, Mary in the Library Michigan (Substack), 21 December 2025, hyperlinks and emphasis in original.
• substack.com/home/post/p-182259227
• Archive: archive.ph/o201d

—

URL of this page: 

safelibraries.blogspot.com/2025/12/protecting-children.html

On Twitter: 

Follow @SafeLibraries Follow @OccupyLibraries Follow @WLibraryA

Join World Library Association:

WorldLibraryAssociation.org

Legal Defense for SLAPP Suits Against Free Speech

Librarians Hate Rush Limbaugh, Love Censorship of Rush Revere Books for Children; The Banned Books Week Hoax Continues

Librarians really hate Rush Limbaugh and really love censorship.  Below I present evidence of generalized hate throughout the librarian community, then I present visual evidence of a library hiding children's books by Mr. Limbaugh and the comments of the videographer.  Lastly I note "Banned Books Week" continues to be a hoax as one of its promoters is part of the Rush Revere censorship gang.

Librarians Love Censorship

of Rush Revere

Look at librarians discussing how disgusted they are that Rush Limbaugh's Rush Revere books for children are in public libraries.  Look how they champ at the bit to get rid of the books or to keep them out in the first place.

In a Facebook public group having almost 16,000 members called "ALA Think Tank" (where ALA means American Library Association), people really hate Rush Limbaugh and the award-winning Rush Revere series of books for children.  As a whole, they definitely do not display any semblance of professional librarianship, ethics, nor opposition to censorship.  It is apparent their personal political interests take precedence over the public good.  And they are in your public libraries, many serving children.

Here is a recent example (from which I obtained the graphic above right):

Hannah Elizabeth Ralston [NOTE: She authored the original post of 10 December 2015 to which the others shown below responded.]
Children's Library Assistant, Webster Public Library, Webster, NY;
Clerk, Victor Farmington Library, Victor, NY:

:( feeling concerned.  Today at work, I discovered that Rush Limbaugh writes YA historical fiction... the covers of which are adorned with historical "hero" figures flaunting Limbaugh's face superimposed over their own...  Not sure what to say about this.

James Tinder
Youth Services Librarian, Dixon Public Library, Dixon, CA:

They're terrible. I had to print out a professional review for a patron at my old job to show them why I didn't order the books.

Bill Wilson
Library Director, Milwaukee County Federated Library System, Milwaukee, WI:

I see both the horse's head and the horse's rear end. Where's Rush? Oh, that isn't the horse's rear end.

Amanda Coward
Adult Services Librarian, Van Buren Public Library, Van Buren, AR:

Yeah these are in my library... Ugh

Andy Woodworth
Head of Reference, Cherry Hill Public Library, Cherry Hill, NJ:

The best one on the series is "Rush Revere and the Time He Ordered The Black Woman to the Back of the Bus"

Tera Forrest
Youth Services Librarian, Crowell Public Library, San Marino, CA:

I'm embarrassed to admit we have them here. Can't wait to weed-er. suddenly find they've gone missing.

Renae Ault Siddle
Children's Services Manager, Salem Ohio Public Library, Salem, OH:

We have them. Only because I'm in a conservative community and patrons asked. I tried to not buy them but director insisted...I don't think they circ well at all.

For context, here are librarians displaying hatred for Rush Limbaugh in the past when discussing Rush Limbaugh's having won an award—see also the comments:

• "Rush Limbaugh—Children's Choice Book Author of the Year?," by Rocco Staino, School Library Journal, 25 March 2014.
• "And the Winner Is...," by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 19 May 2014.

Libraries Oppose "Censorship" of Internet Porn in Children's Sections

This is in a profession that enables children having full access to the unfiltered Internet because it would supposedly violate their First Amendment rights to do otherwise, for example:

• "Library Approves Unfiltered Computers in Children's Section," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 21 November 2015.

Some prominent librarians have spoken out to expose the profession on this issue:

• "Will Manley Outs Library Profession as the Only One in the World That Wants Children to Have Access to Pornography; Annoyed Librarian Says Some Librarians Sound Like Smut Peddlers," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 May 2011.
• "The Anything Goes ALA is Out of the Mainstream by Defending the Right of Children to Access Pornography in Public Libraries," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 2 May 2011.

Video Evidence of a Library Hiding Rush Revere Children's Books

SafeLibraries's co-author Kevin DuJan has specific experience with a public library intentionally blocking access to Rush Limbaugh's Rush Revere children's books.  The library cataloged Rush Revere children's books as adult political, then keep them locked up in a staff room, all to hide them from children.  This is the same library that he and Megan Fox exposed for covering up and still allowing child pornography viewing on the Internet after raising taxes and spending almost $1,000,000 to defend the practice: Orland Park Public Library, Orland Park, IL.  Watch the video:

DID THE OPPL BAN RUSH LIMBAUGH BOOKS? And why can't a woman making $187,000/year (soon to be $189,000/year in... http://t.co/aDeg9p4T9j

— Megan Fox (@MeganFoxWriter) October 29, 2014

Read Kevin DuJan's further explanation and commentary on the video and the library's censorship of Rush Limbaugh's Rush Revere children's books:

1. I went to look for the Rush Limbaugh children's books, Rush Revere. I went to the children's area first. Mary Adamowski (the nice librarian in the video) told me that they had the books because she remembered seeing them. She went to the shelves to get them, where they should be, and she came back and said they were gone and someone must be using them. She said a lot of people ask about them. 
2. Since I never trust anyone at that library, I went upstairs to the adult reference desk and asked for books by Rush Limbaugh. They did not have any, except for the large print version of one of his books from the 1990s. At first they did not say anything about Rush Revere books. I had to remind the reference librarian about the Rush Revere books. She said that if they had those, they would be in the adult section and said the computer showed that they were not checked out. Adamowski did not check the computer downstairs, she just went to where she knew they should be, so upstairs I found out the computer said they had those books. 
3. We walked to the shelves and the Rush Revere books were not where they were supposed to be according to the computer, namely, the adult section. I asked why the books were not supposed to be in the children's section, where people would look for Rush Revere books. I did not tell the reference librarian what Mary Adamowski said that the books are supposed to be in the children's section. Evidently, they had them coded in the computer as being part of the adult political books section, because that's what the reference librarian saw in the computer. 
4. We go back to the reference desk and I asked the reference librarian where the books could be if they are not on the shelves but the computer said they were not checked out. She responded she would ask her supervisor where they were. I thought that was strange. How would a supervisor know where the books were?
5. At that point, library director Mary Weimar was alerted to my presence, appeared, and sat at that reference desk while the reference librarian went behind the locked staff door. I caught that part on video, where Weimar refused to answer my questions or recommend any books. She made herself look stupid. 
6. The reference librarian came back and that's when she figured out they had a Rush book in the large print section. That was the only Rush book they had. So she took me over there. 
7. In the large print area, they did have one old Rush book. But no regular print Rush books and they still didn't know where the Rush Revere books were. 
8. Andrew Masura came over at that point and he said the Rush Revere books were kept in the back, in the staff area, and I couldn't have them because someone else wanted them. I asked him why they were not on the shelves and he just said they keep them in the back. 
9. Andrew was really uncomfortable. I asked why the books were not kept on the shelves in the children's area where people would look for them and why the computer said they would be on the shelves in the adult area. He said he would look into it. 
10. I never was physically able to see the copies of the Rush Revere books that they supposedly had. The computer said they should be on the shelves in the adult political area. Mary Adamowski said she had seen them on the shelves in the children's area before, but assumed someone was using them. Andrew Masura said they keep the Rush Revere books "in the back,” behind the locked staff door. He did not explain why ... but then made up a story about someone must need them so they put them aside. But that back area is NOT where they keep the books that people have on reserve, so that made no sense. The books on reserve are kept behind the checkout desk downstairs near the front entrance. 
11. It seemed to me they were hiding those books. The system says they have them, but no one who wants them can find them. Because it was me who was asking [NOTE: Kevin DuJan is one of the whistleblowers of the child porn coverup by the library director and the library board of trustees for which no one has yet suffered any consequences], the reference librarian went to get a supervisor and the library director detected enough of a problem to personally appear and sit there. So something was definitely up.

Banned Books Week Hoax Ignores Rush Revere

The above video of a public library hiding Rush Revere books for children was made 25 September 2014, right during the American Library Association's annual "Banned Books Week" hoax, this one in 2014.  ALA didn't list Rush Revere as being banned in its 2015 list, further evidencing the hoax it is:

• "Thomas Sowell on Banned Books Week - BBW is 'Shameless Propaganda ... Now Institutionalized With a Week of Its Own,'" by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 16 September 2008.
• "Banned Books Week is Gay Promotion? Author Admits ALA Faked 2010 Top 10 Challenged Book List," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 September 2011.
• "We Tried — And Failed — To Identify the Most Banned Book In America," by David Goldenberg, FiveThirtyEight, 22 June 2015.

So right during "Banned Books Week" a public library is videotaped making it impossible to find Rush Revere children's books.  That was in 2014.  ALA did not include the book to its 2015 "Banned Books Week" hoax while I myself recorded a listed author revealing how ALA faked the 2010 BBW numbers to serve its own interests.  So opposition to censorship is not the ALA's purpose for "Banned Books Week."

Andy Woodworth: Defending the Freedom to Censor Books 

and Make Racist Comments About Rush Limbaugh

By the way, did you notice the librarian making the racist comment about "The Black Woman" to mock Rush Limbaugh and libraries carrying his books?  He worked directly with ALA to promote "Banned Books Week."  "Defend the Freedom to Read: It's Everybody's Job is an awareness campaign conceived by librarian and library activist Andy Woodworth.  OIF has collaborated with Woodworth and commissioned the creation of original art to help spread the word. "  [Footnote omitted.]

• "'It's Everybody's Job' to Report Challenges," by Nanette Perez, American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, 6 October 2011.

"With increased reporting, OIF will be able to better track challenges and removal patterns so as to advise members of the profession."  Yet here's Andy Woodworth not reporting to his own "awareness campaign" he created the censorship of Rush Revere books—instead he's joining in on the censorshipfest.   He's all for defending the freedom to read while defending the freedom to censor Rush Limbaugh books.  And he "collaborates" with ALA's so-called "Office for Intellectual Freedom."  So ALA is fully aware Rush Limbaugh books are being censored and is doing nothing about it—it won't even be mentioned during the annual "Banned Books Week" hoax.

Conclusion

When librarians oppose censorship, it is just for show designed to achieve a certain goal.  In reality, they are the censors.  I have written about numerous examples of librarians practicing censorship.  Above I presented evidence of librarians joyfully bragging about censorship.  I included videotaped evidence taken by my coauthor of a library hiding Rush Revere books.  That was during "Banned Books Week," further evidencing how it is a hoax.

This Rush Limbaugh instance is just the latest case of censorship by librarians, and the video evidence shows the censorship in action.  It is so common librarians brag about it openly on Facebook.  "I'm embarrassed to admit we have them here. Can't wait to weed-er. suddenly find they've gone missing." "I tried to not buy them but director insisted."

You can be sure no library media will cover this story of censorship by librarians.

Does your library have Rush Revere books?

NOTE ADDED 9 JANUARY 2016:

Here's more librarians hating Rush Limbaugh more, and many other prominent conservative authors—and admitting how they practice what they call censorship:

• "Rush Limbaugh may have earned my eternal and all-consuming hatred, but..."

NOTE ADDED 7 FEBRUARY 2016:

When it comes to substantially similar behavior by a woman with respect to And Tango Makes Three for religious and general parenting reasons, suddenly librarians at ALA Think Tank are all up in arms to stop this woman, evidencing yet another double standard in librarianship:

I came across this ultra-conservative Catholic blogger who posted about "losing" library books and leaving "notes" in 50 Shades of Gray.

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2015/12/librarians-hate-rush-limbaugh.html

On Twitter:  @ALALibrary @BannedBooksWeek @Limbaugh @MeganFoxWriter @OIF @OrlandPkLibrary @RushLimbaugh @StoryTimeDigita +Megan Fox +Kevin DuJan

Follow @SafeLibraries