Laws fighting book bans may have unintended consequences — penalties for libraries

If good intentions go awry, anti-book ban laws could have a potentially unintended consequence: library fines.

The American Library Association (ALA) released a brand new report last week revealing that “[t]the number of censored titles increased by 65 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest level ever documented by the American Library Association (ALA). New figures show efforts to censor 4,240 unique book titles in schools and libraries.” For additional perspective, this almost doubles the 2022 figure of two,571.

According to free speech, about 30% of book titles challenged in schools last yr included characters of color or discussed racism or race, and one other 30% included LGBTQ characters or themes. advocacy group PEN America. Additionally, almost half of those books contained themes of violence or insults, and a 3rd contained texts about sexual experiences between characters.

Like the GOP censorship efforts spread across the country, with Democratic lawmakers attempting to fight book ban laws. California and Illinois have already passed laws banning books, and Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Washington have introduced bills on the state level.

But now experts have gotten concerned because “some laws penalize school districts or withhold library funding for noncompliance, such as in Illinois and California. They argue that enforcement measures may particularly pose a threat to schools and public libraries, which are underfunded and understaffed.” NBC News reports.

Director of ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom Deborah Caldwell-Stone says: “When you risk financing for any reason, there is always a concern.”

“We would not like to see overly prescriptive bills that make it more difficult for smaller communities or rural communities to receive funding,” he added. Caldwell-Stone uninterrupted. “Our greatest concern is not to create a system that makes compliance with the Act so burdensome that it would make it more difficult for libraries with fewer resources.”

Not everyone seems to be so concerned about the potential for uncomfortable side effects. Emily Knox, associate professor on the University of University of Illinois within the Urbana-Champaign School of Information Sciences believes the funding link is a key element of the Illinois bill.

“That’s what gives the bill any teeth,” he said Knox. “Libraries and schools need more cash, but because funding is so worthwhile to public institutions, you do not need to do things that jeopardize your ability to get funding from a source just like the state. So it makes a giant difference.

Currently, targeted bills in California and Illinois still involve withholding funds libraries in the event that they don’t have specific rules and materials on the shelves. However, within the face of those growing concerns, some states have already reconsidered penalties against libraries. For example, New Jersey lawmakers have already removed financial penalty language from their proposed bill, and bills that don’t include financial penalties are being introduced in Oregon and Washington.

Either way, libraries and librarians are on the front lines of the book banning war. On the opposite side of the aisle, the Republican governor of Arkansas Sarah Huckabee Sanders “signed a bill that would do many things, including creating the potential for criminal liability for librarians.”