Idaho’s Library Censorship Law: A Dangerous Precedent
A Library Like a Liquor Store?
Throughout history, censorship and library access restrictions have been used to suppress knowledge, often under the guise of moral protection. From the banning of controversial literature in the early 20th century to the McCarthy-era blacklisting of certain political books, restricting access to information has rarely served the public good. These past examples should serve as a warning against allowing such overreach to dictate our intellectual freedoms today.
Imagine you walk into your local public library with the intent to check out the latest book by Stephen King, or maybe a celebrated classic by Jane Austen. But before you can enter, you must show the librarian your ID at the door, as if you were trying to purchase cigarettes or beer. Here’s another scenario: You are a 17-year-old high school senior trying to research a topic for your senior paper. You go to the library to find books on your subject, only to be turned away for being an unaccompanied minor. Sounds insane, right? Well, what seems like a plot point from dystopian fiction is now reality for every citizen of the state of Idaho.
The Rise of Government-Sanctioned Censorship
Surely this can’t be happening in the United States of America, the land of the free! Yet, in 2023 alone, the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom documented 1,247 demands to censor library books and resources, with a 65% increase in unique titles targeted compared to 2022. This alarming trend highlights the growing push to restrict intellectual freedom (ALA, 2023). Legislation like Idaho’s House Bill 710 only accelerates this alarming trend. We see book bans and challenges happening across the nation, but those are typically limited to school libraries, framed as efforts to protect minors from exposure to content deemed inappropriate, sexually explicit, or ideologically objectionable. Proponents of such bans argue that schools should align materials with age-appropriate standards and parental values.
Look, I get it. We all know—or have been—that kid who read Salem’s Lot at ten years old and couldn’t sleep for a month afterward. It’s become a meme to joke about “the adult book I read too young that permanently altered my brain.” As a parent, I’d like to introduce my kids to books like that when I believe they are emotionally mature enough to handle the content. But what happens when we relinquish our responsibility as parents to guide our children’s reading choices and hand that power over to the government?
Idaho House Bill 710: What It Means
Idaho House Bill 710, enacted in July 2024, mandates that public and school libraries relocate materials deemed “harmful to minors” to sections designated for adults only. The full text of the bill, available on the Idaho Legislature website, outlines specific definitions and enforcement procedures. The law defines 'harmful to minors' as material that includes depictions of sexual content, nudity, or homosexuality, as stated in the bill’s official language. However, the broad and subjective nature of this definition leaves room for inconsistent enforcement and potential legal challenges. Furthermore, if a library fails to move a challenged material within 60 days of a complaint, minors or their guardians can file a lawsuit, potentially resulting in a $250 statutory fine and additional damages, as outlined in Idaho House Bill 710, Section 3.
The Double Standard on Violence vs. Sexuality
Notice the wording of the bill: “Harmful to minors” is not the same as “inappropriate for the age and maturity of a child.” The bill focuses heavily on sexual content, yet bans and censorship debates tend to ignore violent content in literature. Many widely accepted books contain graphic depictions of murder, war, torture, and other horrific acts. Why is sex seen as more harmful than violence?
Thinking back to my high school days in the early 1990s, many books labeled as required reading contained extreme violence, which further underscores the inconsistency in censorship policies and raises questions about the true motivations behind these restrictions. Consider Lord of the Flies by William Golding, where children savagely murder each other. Or Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, in which a man is forced to execute his best friend to spare him from mob justice. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee portrays a Black man falsely accused, brutalized, and murdered by a racist mob.
These aren’t anomalies. Literature is full of such examples:
The Iliad by Homer – Graphic battle scenes, dismemberment, and desecration of bodies.
Macbeth by William Shakespeare – Regicide, beheadings, and psychological torment.
Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky – A brutal murder described in detail.
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville – Crew members crushed, drowned, and eaten by sharks.
Many of these violent books were required reading for kids between ages 13 and 17 in public schools at the time, in the same state that now won’t allow a teenager into the library without a parent. This contrast highlights the inconsistency in how content restrictions are applied across different mediums and settings.
Consider film ratings: A movie featuring extreme violence may receive a PG-13 rating, while a film depicting non-explicit sexual content is often rated R. Video games follow similar patterns, where graphic depictions of warfare and crime are widely accepted, but sexual themes prompt stricter controls. This discrepancy raises an important question—why is a child considered mature enough to consume stories of death and destruction but not human intimacy and identity?
This is a nuanced conversation. Every parent has different views on morality and what is appropriate for their child. That’s fine. But these differences are precisely why this law is absurd.
My Personal Experience with Reading Freedom
My own childhood in Idaho was vastly different from what my children experience today. I was raised as a library kid. My mom, an avid reader, took me to the library regularly. I signed up for my first library card at age six, participated in summer reading programs, and relished every Book It Club reward. Books were a way of life, and I had unlimited access to them. My parents never discouraged it.
I recall my fascination with World War II as a child. I checked out a book about Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. My mother warned me the subject matter might be too heavy, but she let me read it. Later, as a teen, I borrowed A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess. My mom’s reaction? “I’m not sure I like you reading that.” That was it. I read it with curiosity and critical thought, rather than rebellion.
These experiences taught me that reading should be guided, not restricted. Guidance fosters independent thought. Restrictions fuel defiance. What message is Idaho sending to its library patrons today?
The Slippery Slope of Censorship
Censorship often begins with the noble intention of “protecting children,” but where does it end? The American Library Association’s 'Censorship by the Numbers' report warns that censorship efforts are rapidly expanding beyond school libraries into public and digital spaces, restricting access to diverse viewpoints (ALA, 2023). It starts in a classroom, then expands to a district, then to an entire state. Other states follow suit, enacting even harsher laws. Now we see similar bills introduced in states like Oklahoma, where Senate Bill 593 threatens to criminalize literature with mature themes, creating a suppressive effect on creative expression and setting a dangerous precedent for restricting intellectual freedom.
History provides a clear example of this escalation. The banning of The Adventures ofHuckleberry Finn in schools for its language led to broader efforts to remove books addressing race and historical injustices from curriculums altogether. Similarly, the McCarthy-era suppression of politically sensitive works resulted in a culture of self-censorship among authors and publishers, discouraging free expression far beyond the initial targets of the crackdown.
Today it’s controversial books, but history shows censorship never stops there. Next come bans on books with LGBTQ+ characters, then books addressing racial injustice. The logical endpoint? A national ban on “problematic” books, with criminal consequences for possession. We’ve told ourselves, “It can’t happen here.” But look around. It’s happening.
Fighting Back Against Censorship
Throughout history, successful anti-censorship movements have fought back against literary suppression. The American Library Association’s Banned Books Week has continually raised awareness about censorship and the importance of free access to literature. Similarly, legal victories, such as the Supreme Court ruling in Island Trees School District v. Pico(1982), reaffirmed that schools cannot remove books simply because they dislike the ideas contained within them.
Fortunately, Idaho’s draconian law has drawn national attention. Today, major U.S. publishers—including Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks—alongside authors, the Authors Guild, a public library district, a teacher, students, and parents, have filed a lawsuit against Idaho. They argue that the law’s vague and broad definition of “harmful” materials leads to preemptive book removals and self-censorship among libraries. The Donnelly Public Library serves as anexample: forced to transition to an adult-only facility, its circulation has plummeted, and its programs are in disarray.
Resisting Digital Censorship
Censorship is no longer just about pulling books off physical shelves. As more people rely on digital libraries and e-books, access to literature is increasingly controlled by licensing agreements and platform policies. Publishers, libraries, and digital platforms can restrict access with a few keystrokes, often without public knowledge or the due process that accompanies physical book challenges. This makes digital censorship even more insidious, as readers may never realize certain books were removed or made inaccessible.
Just as we have seen efforts to restrict books in physical spaces, the battle for intellectual freedom has moved online, and the rules are being rewritten. But just like with physical book bans, there are ways to take action. Alternative platforms like the Internet Archive and the Digital Public Library of America are working to keep banned books accessible, offering a lifeline for readers seeking unrestricted information.
What You Can Do
We can fight back. This is a First Amendment issue. Book bans aren’t about protecting children—they’re about controlling information. As citizens, we can take steps to prevent this:
Stay informed – Follow local, state, and national news. Engage with your representatives.
Vote – Research candidates. Don’t blindly vote along party lines.
Attend school board and city council meetings – Be vocal. The opposition always is.
Support libraries and anti-censorship organizations – Get a library card. Advocate for intellectual freedom.
Freedom isn’t guaranteed; it must be defended through active participation—engaging in discussions, supporting libraries, pushing for policy changes, and educating others about the dangers of censorship. We live in a time where division is being amplified for political gain. But change is possible through collective effort. Never let someone else decide what you or your children can read—because once that power is given away, it’s nearly impossible to reclaim.
