This is the third in a three-part series diving deep into the current state of prison censorship. All of these pieces are by guest writer Aaron Blumberg. Blumberg holds a library degree and has worked in several public libraries and nonprofits throughout his career. He’s passionate about prison literacy, and his experience comes in part from being justice-impacted. Blumberg has worked on several national projects relating to prison literacy and prison censorship, including as part of the group behind updating the American Library Association’s “Standards for Library Services for the Incarcerated or Detained.” At this year’s American Library Association conference, he was part of a panel dedicated to highlighting where and how prison library partnerships can expand their accessibility.

Prison censorship has been increasing as much as–if not more than–censorship in public libraries and schools over the last six years. It is the number one violation of First Amendment rights in America. Blumberg’s posts aim to add even more depth to this ongoing conversation, beginning with a look at prison censorship from the inside, drawing on insights and information from carceral librarians and continuing with a look at how prison censorship impacts those on the outside. This third piece grapples with the legislative efforts against book censorship and where they fail to account for prison censorship–as well as what you can do to help support the right to read for those who are justice-impacted.

Do you value the work done through Literary Activism to amplify, advocate, and activate against book censorship? Then consider supporting it through a membership to Book Riot’s All Access. All Access membership grants access to all of Book Riot’s content, including our members-only newsletters, New Release Index, exclusive community features, and more. For $6 a month or $60 a year, you can help support Literary Activism, keeping it free and accessible to all readers–plus you get to dive even deeper into the great content available at Book Riot. It’s a win-win! 

Anti-Censorship Legislation: Prisons Need Not Apply 

by Aaron Blumberg

The past few years have seen a wave of bills being introduced–and in some places, passed–in both state and federal legislative bodies. These bills are aimed at protecting children from “harmful materials” and those “evil libraries and librarians who seek to corrupt.” It is a rare day that one can doomscroll without coming across articles about efforts to restrict our constitutional rights under the First Amendment. Luckily, there have been a few bright spots with some states making efforts to combat this alarming trend with “anti-book ban” and “freedom to read” legislation, ingraining the freedoms afforded by the first amendment into state law.

With as “bright” as these bills are in the general war on censorship, they purposefully leave carceral institutions in the dark. These legislative acts use specific language so that these protections extend only to school and public libraries, lest we dare hope that it might be applicable to institutions that have faced systemic banning for decades. Even the state bills with wording that seems inclusive of all people and library types fail to extend protections to those who are incarcerated—it’s a classic example of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law.

The Freedom to Read Afforded to All Some

As censorship efforts permeate state and local governments—and also the federal government with recent introductions in the United States House and Senate—some states have taken a stand and made efforts to pass legislation to protect the right. The American Library Association, among other organizations, has compiled a database of what they have deemed as “Adverse Legislation in the States.” This page also includes “Right to Read Legislation” along with relevant information such as the status of the bill and the impact it would have if adverse legislation were to pass.

Due to the ongoing assault on school and public libraries, any attempt by legislative bodies to pass protections against book banning and the criminalization of library workers focuses on narrowly defined library types. With the majority of legislation focusing on school libraries and librarians, these bills seek to cement the First Amendment rights of students to have access to materials. As stated in New Jersey’s Freedom to Read bill, citing the 1969 Tinker federal case, “it has been well established that students do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate’ and, as such, students have a right to access a diverse range of developmentally relevant information, stories, perspectives, and ideas.” 

And yet, the incarcerated appear to be stripped of many of these constitutional rights at the prison gate. 

Losing First Amendment protections by way of restricting what incarcerated people can and cannot read is prevalent in all carceral spaces. These censoring policies are often unevenly interpreted and applied, depending on each individual correctional staff member’s beliefs and understandings. 

As explored in the first article of this series, California prisons have recently seen an uptick in the number of items being added to their disapproved publications list. When one considers the 2024 amendment of the California Penal Code, the increase in prohibited materials should be alarming. This amendment, CA AB-1986, requires the Office of the Inspector General to make the banned publication list available on the California Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (CDRC) website, which it is, but it is the following part that is key:

Upon a request by an incarcerated person, publisher, or other affected person, the Office of the Inspector General may review a publication on the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications to determine if the office concurs with the department’s determination that the publication is in violation of department regulations. The office shall notify the department if the office does not concur with the department’s determination that a publication that the office has reviewed pursuant to this subdivision is in violation of the department’s regulations.

Unfortunately, this bill lacks any legal mechanism (“teeth”) to ensure that the CDRC removes any item from the disapproved publications list if determined to not be in violation of policy. 

A point of contention with any reviewing body, which in this case is the Office of the Inspector General, is whether the members have any relevant qualifications to determine if a prohibition on a publication is actually valid. According to the American Library Association’s 2024 Standards for Library Services for the Incarcerated or Detained, “decisions about censorship shall be made by a committee of no fewer than three people, one of whom is a Professional Librarian.” 

While the standards at this point are aspirational, this particular line item might become reality in California. A currently incarcerated person has written a proposal for hopeful introduction during next year’s legislative session. With the aid of the ACLU, they are proposing a committee of librarians be involved in the process and an increase in access to information overall, gathering support with assembly members through grassroots advocacy efforts by other people who are incarcerated.

It is important to note that during the same legislative session where AB-1986 was signed into law, California’s Freedom to Read Act (AB-1825) was also signed into law. This law, applicable only to school and public libraries, codifies that library materials shall not be excluded or access to limited due to content. It also states: “Librarians and library staff receive extensive professional training to develop and curate collections to meet the broad and diverse interests of their communities, which include, but are not limited to, literary value and developmental appropriateness of material.” 

And yet, if you are incarcerated or a librarian in a California prison, this need not apply to you.

Othering Versus Belonging

To understand how some legislative language perpetuates the “othering” that the incarcerated often have to deal with, it is important to properly define “othering” and conversely, “belonging.” These terms as defined by the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley are as follows:

Belonging: More than just being seen or feeling included, belonging entails having a voice and the opportunity to use it to make demands upon society and political institutions. Belonging is more than having access; it is about the power to co-create the structures that shape a community.

Othering: A set of dynamics, processes, and structures that engender marginality and persistent inequality across any of the full range of human differences based on group identities. In opposition to belonging, othering is a frame that captures the many forms of prejudice and persistent marginality such as race, gender, sexuality, religion, income, and disability. The term also explains and analyzes a set of common policies and practices that engender othering.

In the context of legislation, while the actual word of the law can and should protect the First Amendment rights of all, “othering” creates a loophole by which the spirit of the law might be warped to the exclusion of some. Case in point, the 2023 amendment to the Illinois Library System Act (HB 2739).

This “ban on book bans” legislation adds to the original act verbiage adopting the American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights,” with the specifically wording stating “materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval” and that libraries must “satisfy the library needs of the people of this state and prohibit the practice of banning specific books or resources.” The original, unamended text that remains intact says that the Act’s objectives include: “[to] provide library service for every citizen in the state,” “[to] provide library materials for student needs,” and “[to] provide adequate library materials to satisfy the reference and research needs of the people of this state.”

The use of inclusive language, referring to “every citizen in the state” and “people of this state” should, in theory, apply to anyone who resides in the state of Illinois, including the populations of Illinois prisons. However, due to the pernicious nature of “othering,” the incarcerated are treated as “less than,” and to allow for their inclusion or to even acknowledge their citizenship or their personhood in this context would be seen as unpalatable to the general public. 

One could argue that prison libraries are not public libraries. They fall under the purview of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), whereas, other library types fall under the authority of the State Librarian, a role held by the Secretary of State in Illinois. And yet, there is a case to be made otherwise.

When the legislation was passed, those at the Education Justice Project had internal conversations about whether this bill would apply to their libraries and how they would be able to make a case that it should. It was pointed out that the Secretary of State had granted funds to IDOC libraries for the explicit purpose of purchasing library materials and services. That was taken as meaning that the State Librarian saw prison libraries as being under their authority. And yet, if this was the case, a double standard was created, granting funds to prison librarians without holding them to the same standard of compliance required for funding other library types. In essence, the Secretary of State only considered prison libraries under the State Library’s umbrella when it suited the optics and adopted the “not under my purview” stance–or worse not even considering a prison library an actual library–when it comes to state funding eligibility being tied to adopting the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights.

Advocacy is Key

So, what can be done at a grassroots level? It feels like beating a dead horse, but advocating for equitable, unfettered access to information in all its forms to everyone is needed. When we push back against book bans in schools and public libraries, we must also highlight the censoring of materials behind bars. Connecting with your legislators and being vocal about the importance of information access and education for the incarcerated can lead to meaningful conversations and hopeful change.

Kelly Brotzman, Executive Director of Prison Book Program, writes:

Almost every legislature has a committee — often two, one for the House and one for the Senate — that oversee prisons, and generally there is at least one member of that committee that is an advocate for incarcerated people and their rights. Finding supportive legislators willing to champion anything for folks behind bars can be hard — as you know, there is no political upside to this, at least in electoral terms, only downside. But they do exist!

She also suggests urging these same committees to sign onto any legislation that is anti-book ban in process for school and public libraries. Doing so creates solidarity and shared interest in combatting censorship, which hopefully creates a “quid pro quo” if/when anti-prison censorship bills are being proposed and considered.

Right now, there are three Federal bills introduced that pertain to prison libraries:

H.R. 7247 Prison Libraries Act of 2026:

[S]hall establish a program to make grants to eligible applicants for the purpose of providing library services to incarcerated individuals in order to advance reintegration efforts, reduce recidivism, and increase educational opportunities.

S.4319 Rehabilitation Through Reading Act of 2026:

[S]hall establish a Publication Review Committee for the purpose of approving or disapproving the availability of books at Bureau of Prisons facilities.

H.R. 9986 Read for Reentry Act of 2026:

[S]hall conduct a study on libraries and library services offered in State and Federal prisons, and submit to Congress a report [that would provide descriptions of available library services, data on funding sources of state and federal libraries, demographic information on incarcerated populations where library services are offered, and recidivism rates of individuals released from prisons with library services].

Contacting your federal representatives in the House and Senate on these bills is just as important as talking with them about the slate of bills seeking to ban books nationwide. 

We need to frame the issue of prison censorship around what is commonplace on the outside being restricted on the inside. Jodie Lincoln of the Pittsburgh Prison Project reminds us that what we have by being on the outside should not be privileged. The incredible amount of access to information is something people on the inside fundamentally do not have, whether that is due to the lack of internet access, materials access, and/or censorship policies. She urges that we consider how our lives would be if this access is restricted or taken away completely because that is the reality for those who are incarcerated. The prison sentence is the punishment; restricting access to materials that help support lifelong learning and reducing recidivism is not.

Advocating while incarcerated has many challenges, including disciplinary actions for “attempting to incite a riot,” so it falls to us on the outside to do what we can to speak up and speak out in their place. With the many attempts to ban books in schools and public libraries, now is the time to highlight and fight against prison censorship too.

***

For more information and resources, please visit the Prison Banned Books Week website.

See also: Prisoners’ Right to Read: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (American Library Association)

Book Censorship News: August 28, 2026
  • In a timely and relevant piece, here’s a look at how Illinois prisons ban on physical mail has made getting books to those on the inside nearly impossible.
  • Here is another excellent piece from this week about how Dallas County jails ban print books and magazines for those on the inside and how damaging that censorship policy is.
  • The ways Florida censored climate change from textbooks.
  • Cobb County School District Superintendent Chris Ragsdale (GA) told teachers and staff at a back to school rally that he was glad to have seen the board ban books in the district. What a way to encourage your educators at the beginning of a new year–political nonsense.
  • The Maryland State Superintendent has issued a 60 day stay on the Somerset County School Board’s intended policy to ban all young adult books from the district. This is coming from the bad faith and factually incorrect assertion that “YA” books are books for those age 18 and older. The stay is good news, as this policy is in blatant violation of the state’s anti-book ban law.
  • Frank Strong of the Texas Freedom to Read Project talks about how Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s tirade about dirty books in the state–and his threat to schools for not removing the 2,200 books on a conservative book banner’s list of books–shows how much of a parent problem he has.
  • Here’s a great letter to the editor in Salt Lake City, Utah, about the latest book ban by the state.
  • Higley Unified School District (AZ) is currently dealing with school board members who are upset about the use of a children’s picture book called Elmer in elementary classrooms. Why? Those wet shoelaces believe the picture book pushes LGBTQ+ themes. IT’S A BOOK ABOUT AN ELEPHANT.
  • A Readington School Board member (NJ) challenged the book The Perks of Being a Wallflower. During their last board meeting, a former educator came to public comments to make clear that board member didn’t read the book he’s supposedly mad about. Love these receipts!
  • Looks like one of the schools responsible for a significant number of the state-wide book bans in Utah violated the state’s policy for review books. That is, they removed something without going through the proper process.
  • “I imagine that most people heard this tirade and saw a blustering politician gearing up for election season. What librarians saw was more alarming. We saw a hostage situation taking shape.” This is a great read from a Texas librarian on the threats from the state’s Lieutenant Governor about downgrading schools who don’t remove a conservative activist’s hit list of books.
  • “It’s rare that men in power make explicit how much they view women—including female colleagues—like children, but here we are!” This is another really good read about what’s at stake with Texas’s Lieutenant Governor’s threats against schools for not pulling Bonnie’s books.
  • A federal court has ruled that Texas’s ban on drag shows is unconstitutional.
  • Harford County Schools (MD) are looking for volunteers for their challenged book review committee. This school’s committee voted to keep Flamer last yea