����vlog����

• In recent years, U.S. public and school libraries have been facing an organized effort to censor their content and programming. These challenges have come alongside legislation criminalizing library staff and threats of violence.
• The organized nature of recent efforts is distinct from book challenges throughout the 20th century, which most often looked like individuals questioning the appropriateness of a book on a library’s shelves.
• Censorship and book bans have existed for as long as the written word, suggesting a human instinct to control the dominant narrative that stands in contrast to American democratic ideals of free speech as codified in the First Amendment.
• As early as the 18th century, the U.S. Congress has passed legislation limiting First Amendment freedoms, including the Sedition Act (1798), the Comstock Act (1873), and the Espionage Act (1917).
• Obscenity is one of several types of speech not protected by the First Amendment, and is at the center of today’s library censorship efforts. Obscenity is legal concept used to characterize material that offends a public sense of decency. In contemporary legal cases, books alleged to be obscene are subject to a three-part analysis known as the Miller Test (1973). Books challenged in school libraries are additionally held to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), which found that school boards cannot restrict the availability of books in their libraries simply because board members disagree with their content.
• While since 2020 many states have proposed and in some cases implemented legislation limiting the right to read and criminalizing the work of librarians and teachers, many others have prevented or repealed such legislation and upheld First Amendment freedoms.

Alessandra Seiter (AS): I just want to say a few words before I turn it over to Jocelyn, our main event of the night. But first, I want to say thank you for joining us this afternoon. I'm Alessandra Seiter, the Community Engagement Librarian here at Harvard Kennedy School. I'm especially excited to welcome you today because it's our inaugural event of an initiative that we just launched in the ����vlog���� Library called the Libraries and Democracy Initiative. And I want to tell you about that initiative before we dive into the talk, in the hopes that you'll continue engaging with this work as it progresses.

So the Libraries and Democracy Initiative is built on the recognition that libraries are critical to a thriving democracy. Libraries enable the free exchange of ideas among all members of a community. They couple universal access to lifelong learning with a space for genuine gathering and interaction. They serve as key nodes of civic engagement, doubling as polling places, connecting patrons with government services, and hosting community forums on polarizing topics. So, in an information-driven society that's grappling with questions of trust, inequity and polarization, libraries offer the tools and for exploration and connection.

And so the Libraries & Democracy Initiative will give community members opportunities to meaningfully engage with these ideas and practices through events (like this one), collaborations, and visual media. And so I encourage all of you to kind of keep that framing in your head as Jocelyn is speaking today.

And speaking of Jocelyn's talk, I just want to get a show of hands. If you’re online you can think about this, but in person: how many of you have heard of a book being removed from a school or a library, either through direct experience or just reading about it in the news? Okay. Great. Everyone. That's kind of what I was expecting.

So, you know, the ubiquity of book bans in recent years is why we wanted to center our first talk of the Libraries & Democracy Initiative on -- on that that topic, to place this current push for censorship in historical context and explore why the freedom to read is really a fundamental tenet of our democratic system.

Just a few housekeeping items before I introduce Jocelyn. The first is that we are recording this talk, and we're going to post it online afterwards but we'll cut out the discussion portion so you don't have to feel like your questions are being recorded. And then I will explain how to, you know, ask questions for those of you online once we get there. 

But in the meantime, I'm really excited to welcome our speaker for the day, Jocelyn Kennedy. She is the Executive Director of the Farmington Libraries in Farmington, Connecticut, and she has also served as the Executive Director of the Harvard Law School Library, very close to us, as well as the Director of Library Services at the UConn Law Libraries, and as a Research Librarian at the University of Michigan Law Library. So please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Jocelyn Kennedy.

Jocelyn Kennedy (JK): Thanks, everybody. Thank you for that welcome. I'm, super grateful to the Kennedy School Library for this year-long Libraries and Democracy programming. I think it's so important. And I'm really excited to talk with you about the history of censorship in the United States. And really, as Alessandra said, I'm aiming here just to kind of try to orient you to the current landscape that we're living in.

And just a little bit more about me and like, why do I care about this topic? I've really been engaged with this topic for over 40 years. It's hard to believe that when I’m only 20, but I've been engaged with this topic of censorship as a student who has had books taken away from them in their high school classroom as a result of censorship by parents; as a reader, of course; as a lawyer and as a librarian.

So, until last year, I was deeply rooted, right, in the higher education space and -- and working at the intersection of law, libraries, and social justice. Libraries of the 20th and 21st centuries really have served as bastions of democracy and civic engagement. The evolution of free libraries in communities, large and small, are an equalizer amongst the members of our community.

They’re spaces where people of all walks of life can engage in self-directed education, which is really, truly an amazing thing. And in some ways unique to the United States. They’re spaces where community members have access to rich and engaging educational, creative, and recreational activities. So I invite you -- these are some photos of libraries in your community, and then my library as well -- to visit your local public libraries, if it's been a while since you've been there, here in Cambridge, across the river in Boston, in your hometown or your home country. And while you're there, what you will see is your community in action. You'll see toddlers and young families. You'll see teenagers, retirees, new arrivals, job seekers and degree questers colliding in really positive ways with each other as they seek understanding for growth and connectedness.

You might see people seeking health care, social services, mental health interventions. You may see English language learners, people studying for their citizenship tests, adults learning to read. You'll likely see people down on their luck. And people of privilege browsing stacks together, and alongside each other. It's not actually a cliche when I say that public libraries are truly for everyone -- or should be -- regardless of class, creed, orientation, race, gender, or their age.

Libraries are not perfect places, like, to be clear. Libraries are filled with people, and people are not perfect, and libraries are not perfect. But we are fundamental civic centers within our communities. So I love talking about libraries. I love what I do, I love the transition from the academic space into the public library space. And it's been amazing for me.

And I love libraries, even when we're talking about book bans and censorship. So censorship has been on the rise in the 21st century. We've seen it on our college campuses and social media, in schools and in libraries across the country. And from the library context, we see censorship in the form of content and programing challenges, right? So what does that look like? For most of the 20th century, it looked like individuals questioning the appropriateness of a book on library shelves. But over the last almost five years, it looks like a concerted effort by organized groups to challenge materials en masse, to propose legislation limiting content in libraries and classrooms.

So there's been proposed legislation that limits content in libraries and classrooms, and in some instances it criminalizes library staff who circulate books to library guests. In Montana, a law was passed banning minors from attending drag queen performances. Which are typically -- like, a drag queen performance is typically held in the evening at a bar. So that's kind of a silly law. But really, it was meant to ban drag queen storytimes in libraries. In Texas, in Llano County, Texas, the library commissioner, who was an elected official, ordered the removal of 17 books from the library. Then the library board was dissolved, reconstituted, and the library shut down -- the town library -- temporarily to remove any book the library board declared inappropriate. And that went to court and -- the librarian actually sued -- and that court, the lower court in Texas, found that the government had overstepped. The case is currently on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.

In 2024, 32 states had bills pending, regulating -- related to content regulation, including in school and public libraries. In 2023, 17 states had proposed legislation criminalizing librarianship. Library workers and their families are being harassed, verbally assaulted, and physically threatened. Library workers are being physically threatened. Their families are being threatened. They are truly at this moment on the front lines of a culture war.

So this long moment feels unique to many of us, particularly those who work in library spaces. It seems to be the antithesis of the “American” values. So what about the First Amendment and free speech, right? To understand where we are? I think it's useful to understand where we've been. So today, we'll walk through some of the history of censorship in the United States, with a particular focus on the written word.

So the earliest banned book in the United States is believed to be a book called The New English Canon by Thomas Morton. So Thomas Morton was not a Puritan. But he was here in the United States in the 1600s, and he was incredibly critical of the Puritan government in Plymouth. He was actually exiled by the community. And so he founded his own community, Marymount, which is now in Quincy, Massachusetts. And he published a book called The New English Canon, which was banned by Cavendish and others in 1632. It’s what we believe to be the earliest book.

But book banning has existed since the written word, right? So humans seem to have this natural instinct to want to control the narrative, right? However they can control the narrative, they really want to get in there and do that. So as we harken back to our history classes, we might recall the Spanish Inquisition or the Calvinist movement. We might recall Galileo or Sir Isaac Newton, and more moments in our early history where ideas were suppressed. In the 1400s, for example, the Catholic Church created an index of works that were heretical. Is that how you say the word “heretical”? Thank you. Say it again. Heretical. Thank you. And should not be read by Catholics. Like, the church banned these books, generated this index, and said Catholics cannot read these books. Not only can Catholics not read these books, the Holy See will not allow them to be published. That index was actually active until 1942, which was the last time it was updated. In the English Empire, the King or the Queen required printers to receive a license to publish works.

So if you've ever heard the term “prior restraint” -- that is, putting restraint on publication of material but pre-publication -- that's where that actually comes from. It comes from England, the actions of the King and Queen. And prior restraint, it really was one of the motivators for the First Amendment and of course, the freedom of the -- of the press from government interference. So to remind you, the First Amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or breaching the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to assemble -- to peaceful -- peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

So I'm here today to talk about censorship. I'm going to narrow in on this very specific part of the First Amendment.: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.” I'm going to talk today about specific instances where Congress did, in fact, make laws abridging freedom of speech. I'll give you some examples of self-regulation by professional associations, and then explore a couple of the major case law developments related to censorship, specifically of written materials. When I talk about written materials, I will use the term “book.” But really, I mean magazines, graphic novels, poems, and any other collected works in any form, digital or print.

Okay, so the First Amendment was passed on December 15, 1791. In 1797, with a possible war with France in the offing, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798. The Sedition Act criminalized certain types of speech -- specifically speech against the government, any branch of the government -- that either defamed the members of that branch or more generally, brought those members “into contempt or disrepute, or to cite -- incite against them the hatred of the good people of the U.S, or to stir up sedition or excite any unlawful combination thereof for opposing or resisting any law of the United States.”

Of course, the war from France never came to fruition, but the Sedition Act actually remained in effect until it expired in 1801, and President Adams was very supportive of the Sedition Act. He actually used it to thwart criticism of his presidency, and perhaps (we don't really know) to exact revenge upon his enemies. The law expired when the Federalists, mainly, were voted out of office.

In ways that history always seems primed to repeat itself, the last four years have brought new attention to the notion of sedition, the power of language to incite the people, and the motivation of government actors to suppress language critical of our institutions. So interesting, right? During the early 1800s, as the nation was developing, a number of laws were passed creating the government. So if you've seen the musical Hamilton, you are familiar with the vast array of government systems and structures created during this time, right?

Two structures that would really assist in furthering censorship into the 21st century here in the United States were the Post Office and the US Customs Office. Fascinating, right? So one law in particular really set the tide for over 20 years of censorship in the United States. This was the first concerted effort by the government to control access to information and began with a gentleman named Anthony Comstock, who was a lifelong anti-vice and anti-obscenity crusader. He founded an organization called the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. And he almost single-handedly lobbied for an amendment to the United States Postal Service's laws to provide criminal penalties for trading in immorality. The Comstock Act, as it was colloquially known and continues to be known today, became law on March 3, 1873. There was no debate offered. A speech by Congressman Clinton Merriman of New York, who introduced the bill, included a letter from Anthony Comstock outlining his work to eradicate offensive materials and discussing how these “abominations are disseminated.” Marion points out, “this business is carried on primarily by the agency of the United States mails, and there's no law today by which we can interfere with the sending out of these catalogs and circulars through the mail.”

So with passage of the Comstock Act, Comstock -- Anthony Comstock -- was actually named a special agent of the Post Office. He received $100 a year, and he was authorized and charged with enforcing these obscenity laws. This included the mailing of materials deemed obscene without definition. So there's no definition of obscenity, although they primarily targeted material often promoting or discussing sex, birth control, and abortion. Classic works of literature that celebrated lust were also seized as a result. As a special agent, Comstock often used entrapment as a way to identify violators and to issue warrants for seizure. He would submit an order -- like, he would go like, fill out...so these things were advertised in newspapers, and you'd fill out a little form and send away for this material. So he would submit orders for this material to be sent to him under a false name. And when the material was delivered, he would have his evidence, and he would use that evidence to arrest people. Thousands of people were prosecuted under the Comstock Act. Among them -- (I’m just bad at keeping up with my slides) among them, Margaret Sanger, who was the mother of the birth control movements.

You might have heard the Comstock Act more recently, because the Comstock Act is being revived as a potential tool in the anti-abortion movement as a method to eliminate the distribution of anything related to performing health care for women, particularly reproductive health care, through the mail. So, as you can imagine, if they instituted -- if they really reinforce -- the Comstock Act is still on the books. If they reinstitute that, any mailing of any medical device that could be used in reproductive health for women could be seized, and those people could be arrested.

So over time, a series of court cases went into effect that removed the teeth from this law, really. But as I said, it's still on the books, and it says, “every obscene, lewd and lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance is declared to be non-mailable material.” And it's still a crime, right, to mail it. So that's kind of what's happening with the Comstock Act.

Moving forward in time. In 1917, the United States passed the Espionage Act, and in 1918 it amended the Act with a new Sedition Act. And this law was in effect until 1928. Like the earlier Sedition Acts, the government sought to regulate speech to bolster the war effort and to thwart anti-war protesters like presidential candidate Eugene Debs, who was an anti-war protester who encouraged people to avoid the draft. He was actually convicted of sedition under this law and imprisoned, and he -- he actually ran for office while he was in prison.

As early as 1842, the United States Custom Agency, and the laws and regulations governing the import of items from abroad, prohibited the importation of items indecent or obscene. But it wasn't until 1930 that the Tariff Act explicitly included printed words in its definition of immoral articles. So prior to 1930, many works of art and literature were reviewed by the U.S. Customs Office to determine whether they were indecent or obscene.

In fact, under, both the Comstock Act and the United States Customs and Tariffs Act, it was under those two acts together that one of the most famous censorship cases was decided. So you might have heard of the book: Ulysses by James Joyce. It was published as a serial in -- between 1918 and 1920 in the UK and in the United States. Ulysses contains descriptions of drunkenness, masturbation, sex, and profane language. In 1921, the United States Post Office used the Comstock Act to deem Ulysses obscene and confiscated the magazine in which it was being published and prosecuted the publishers Margaret Anderson and Jane Heap. They were found guilty, fined $50, and ordered -- and ordered to desist from publishing further installments.

Ulysses was first published as a book in Paris in 1922, and it was frequently smuggled into the United States. It was placed on the No Import list by the United States Customs Court in 1928. This is the United States Custom Court in Salem, Massachusetts. In an attempt to get the courts to review the obscenity claims, a plan was developed to force the government's hand. So in 1933, the same court declared Ulysses obscene, particularly Molly Bloom's soliloquy, also known as the Penelope chapter.

After an arduous journey across the Atlantic, the book was seized by the United States Customs Office and a libel suit ensued. In the U.S. court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John Woosley, who's pictured here, after a thorough reading of the book -- and I don't know how many people here or online have read Ulysses. I've read it. It’s a difficult, challenging book to get through because of the way that Joyce wrote. So good on Judge Woosley for actually reading it. But he did read it and he declared it not obscene, right? He said it was challenging and difficult and hard to get through, but that it was that did not meet a just definition of obscene. His decision was actually upheld on appeal, and Ulysses was then taken off the No Import list. So we owe it to him for being able to read Ulysses today.

In 1948, the United States Congress enacted Title 18, which is the Federal Criminal Code, right? So that's where all of the federal criminal laws are codified under. Chapter 71 of that code addresses crimes of obscenity. And there are a variety of obscenity crimes, including the crime of broadcasting obscene language. This includes both radio and television, right? So you might recall, if you're old enough (or maybe you've heard about it) -- George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words monologue. Or the wardrobe -- maybe more recently, the wardrobe malfunction at the 2012 Super Bowl. It's a crime to broadcast profanity, except between the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. under regulations from the FCC. That does not include cable companies and private companies that broadcast through the streaming services we use today. 

During the McCarthy era, writers, filmmakers, musicians, political and public figures were investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. Many of these investigations involved public hearings where people were called to defend themselves against often baseless claims. They were blacklisted and accused of being anti-American and members of the Communist Party. Libraries were urged to remove materials from their shelves, and community members were urged to turn their neighbors in. So, this slide, I think is really interesting, because it talks about textbooks that won't be distributed because of un-American behavior. And I like this letter as well, because even the Consumer Reports was urged to be removed from libraries.

So this period, the McCarthyism period, ran from 1948 through around 1954, when many of McCarthy's claims were proved to false, right? But during this period, many artists and writers were harmed economically and socially by McCarthy's claims, and many, many communities continued to censor material written by so-called Reds. It wasn't only the government, right, that was concerned with immorality.

In 1915, a court case ruled that films were not protected by the First Amendment as free speech. So to avoid regulation by the legislature, the film industry decided to regulate itself. On March 31, 1930, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America ratified something called the Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code which was to “govern the portrayal of crimes against the law, sex, vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, costumes, dance, religion, and repellent subjects.” Under the code, no prints for distribution of films would be permitted until the film was reviewed for compliance and approved. The Hays Code and its panel of approvers fundamentally controlled all aspects of the film industry during its tenure. 

rom 1934 through 1968, the Hays Code fell out of favor as times changed, and in 1952, the United States Supreme Court overruled itself and afforded First Amendment protections to films, and the Classification and Ratings Administration was created to provide some safeguards -- safeguards for viewers. So what we see today is -- it's known as CARA -- still exists. And this is what rates movies for audience levels. So this is where the rated G, PG, PG-13 comes from.

In 1954, the comic book industry adopted the Comics Code Authority, and according to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the Comic Book Code was designed to avoid government regulation following a U.S. Senate investigatory hearing investigating the contribution of comics to juvenile delinquency. Like the Motion Picture Production Code, the CCR reviewed comics pre-publication -- so an example of prior restraint -- and assigned a seal of approval to comic books that it had approved. Things in comic books that would -- would lead to the denial of the seal included content of violence, sex, nudity, poor grammar, and use of slang. Right? Interesting. The standard really was geared toward the youngest readers. Comic books that might be okay for an adult would not pass muster. So it didn't matter who was reading it or who it was developed for. If it wasn't appropriate for kids, it wasn't going to get this seal. This seal of approval was actually in effect until 2011. Lots of comic books were produced without that seal on it. So it didn't, like, lead necessarily to the reduction of the production of comics. But the seal of approval was something that some parents looked for.

In 1985, Congress held hearings on explicit lyrics in the music industry, led by a group called the Parents Music Resource Center, which, counted Tipper Gore as one of its lead members. The group raised attention to the content of some music and its potential harm to children. The Parental Advisory labeling system is also a volunteer activity. This is run by the Recording Industry Association of America. Parental Advisory stickers you find on music is similar to the CCA Seal of Approval, and is similar to the movie rating system in the late 80s and 90s. The content of music lyrics was a hot button topic, with many record stores only selling labeled material to people over 18 or not at all. So like, back in the day when I was a kid, I would have to show my ID in order to buy a record.

These are just some select examples of government and quasi-government censorship laws throughout U.S history. All 50 states in the United States have some form of immorality or obscenity laws, usually found within their criminal code. These laws make it illegal to knowingly sell, distribute, display, so on...pictures, books, or writings that are immoral or obscene. Many states, but not all, have a carve-out exception for educators and libraries.

Many are concerned -- many of these pieces of stat-- many of these statues are concerned really with the distribution of immoral or obscene materials to minors, right? There's a thread here. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that states have a legitimate -- “have a legitimate interest in prohibiting the dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode of dissemination carries with it a significant danger of offending the sensibilities of unwilling recipients, or of exposure to juveniles.”

The One Book Called Ulysses Case is one of the more famous book banning cases in our history. And it really began the evolution of an analysis that brings us to our standard today. It's not the only case. Various courts have heard cases involving works that today we consider classics. Many books are banned because the content is, like I keep saying, like, the word that keeps -- the two words that keep coming up: immoral and obscene.

And the United States Supreme Court has a long history of cases addressing the First Amendment, and has carved out a handful of types of speech that are not, in fact, protected by the First Amendment. So these include incitement to violence, which probably clears the way to convictions under sedition, right? Speech that is part of illegal activity. If anybody's ever heard of the book called The Anarchist Cookbook, that's not a protected book because it does suggest different ways to engage in illegal activity. Fighting words are not protected. Those are where the words you speak could lead a listener to believe you wanted to start a fight, a physical fight with them. Defamatory falsehoods, like maybe calling a librarian a pedophile when you know it's false and say it anyway. Commercial speech, like saying your business has a 100% safety rating when in fact your business has a 0% safety rating, is not protected speech. And obscenity.

So obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. And this has been the most difficult for us to define. So I'm going to spend a little bit of time talking about obscenity, as it is the -- not actually about obscene things -- but as it is the crux of the most important and current conversation around censorship today, right? So obscenity is a legal concept, actually, that's used to characterize certain, particularly sexual, acts -- particularly sexual material -- as offensive to the public sense of decency. A wholly satisfactory definition of obscenity is elusive, right, however, largely because what is considered obscene is often, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. Although the term originally referred to things considered repulsive, it was -- has since acquired a more specifically sexual meaning, right?

In a series of cases throughout the 20th century, the the United States Supreme Court adopted standards for determining if something is obscene. You've all likely heard the phrase, “I know it when I see it.” This is, after a line of cases in which the United States Supreme Court continued to change the standard, the court decided Miller v. California in 1973. So in Miller, the court said that while the First Amendment isn't an absolute right, state statutes regulating obscene material have to be carefully designed and limited. States must be careful, they basically said, when they are regulating speech. So I urge you to read the Miller case. It’s actually really good and it's accessible, in regard to its legalese, for the average reader. And it's really important.

So the Miller Test, which is what we refer to today when we're trying to determine if something is obscene, is a three-pronged test, right? So basically, the guidelines for the trier of fact must be whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, which is something that we've been talking about a lot in the current framework, would find that the work, taken as a whole -- in its entirety -- appeals to the prurient interest. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. So what does that mean? The court stated, at a minimum -- minimum prurient -- patently offensive depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct must have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to merit First Amendment protection. This language should look familiar, as is adopted in many of the laws and challenges we see today.

While prior cases considered the suppression of books and other materials by the government on a variety of grounds, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico involved the removal of books from the libraries of a public high school, a junior high school based on subject. So here I want to read an excerpt directly from this court case that discusses the special role of the state in educating children. I seem to have missed one of my slides, so I'm not going to read that.

The court has long recognized that local school boards have broad discretion in the management of school affairs. Epperson v. Arkansas -- an evolution case -- reaffirmed that, “by and large, public education in our nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities, and that federal courts should not ordinarily intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems. We, the court, have also acknowledged that public schools are vitally important in the preparation of individuals, for preparation as citizens and as vehicles for inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system. We, the court, are therefore in full agreement with petitioners that local school boards must be permitted to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values, and that there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values, be they social, oral, or political.”

So, I'm still reading from the Pico decision, right? “At the same time, however, we have necessarily recognized that the discretion of the state and local school boards in matters of education must be exercised in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment. Boards of Education have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights (that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights). That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms of the individual. If we are not to strangle the free mind at its source, and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes, the court emphasizes in this case that the role of the school library is unique from the broader curriculum, that using the school library is voluntary, that the selection of books is a matter of free choice, and that the libraries afford students an opportunity at self-education and individual enrichment: enrichment that is fully optional.”

The court goes on to note that, of course, there's an educational interest at play in determining what is placed in a school library. But in the limited Pico environment, books were removed after they had been placed in the library: so after a curricular decision had been made. The court was particularly concerned that the books at issue were removed because they were, in the petitioner's words, right? So the people who banned the books -- removed them from the library -- were “anti-American, anti-Christian, antisemitic, and just plain filthy.” The court did not address in the Pico case what a school could add to its library collection, which is partly what's happening in the U.S. today, right? That they just really were looking at the notion that local school boards may not remove books from school libraries’ shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books, and seek by their removal to “proscribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”

So this is the current legal standard for the removal of books from school libraries that are afforded First Amendment protection. That's the standard that we're applying today. But what about obscene material, right? At the center of some of the book challenges in the United States today, right? So that's what we're talking about. We're back to this Miller Test, right? With a little addition to the language for kids. So ultimately, the laws being passed today in the U.S. and the challenges to books in public and school libraries are subject to both the Miller Test and the court’s holding in Pico. So we go through the obscenity analysis, and then we have to look at whether or not it violates the First Amendment from a school perspective.

There are currently a number of cases making their way through the courts in various states. And the outcomes so far are trending toward First Amendment protection. So this is actually -- and these are some of the reasons why in 2020, books were challenged in the U.S., in schools and in libraries.

So with what you've learned today, I urge you to consider what the outcomes of book challenges should be in light of these reasons for challenging books. These are reasons for challenging books in 2020. In 2023, the last few years, we've seen an influx of statutes limiting the right to read and criminalizing the work of teachers and librarians. And that trend has continued into 2024.

But states are also rising to the occasion and protecting the right to read freely. And even in Florida and Georgia, which have frequently been in the news for their book banning legislation, are walking back from the hyper-restrictive legislation they passed in recent years. This rise in legislation supporting the right to read actually gives me hope. And you can visit everylibrary.org -- which is the only library, only lobbying organization in the country -- you can follow the ebb and flow of legislation in this area, right?

So all of this history gives me hope. While this moment is fraught and scary, particularly for people who work in schools and libraries, dealing with content, I really actually believe we're going to trend back toward a center of rationality. If our past reflects our future, then this moment will pass, right? We've seen it over and over again. Just as, like, an aside, I wonder if programming around the sesquicentennial, or the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States, is a moment for us all to reflect on the values this nation was founded on: one of liberty, justice, and freedom for all.

I think our quest to build a more perfect union continues. And your work, the students’ work here at the Kennedy School, in local, regional and national policies, will help all of us as we strive ever closer toward that nation and a brighter future where we're free to explore ideas, discover new pathways, and expand our horizons.

So I just want to -- I'm done. I want to thank -- but I want to thank the Kennedy School Library today for inviting me to speak with you. This is my bibliography. And for you for being here. I hope you learned something new, something you didn't know. And I hope you'll continue to think about how the law ought to be, and that as global citizens, all of us, we continue to uphold each other's right to read freely. Thank you.