This is the first 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. At the bottom of each post, you’ll find additional reading and resources related to prison censorship and where and how literary advocates can get involved in pushing for better access for all.

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! 

Censorship in Prison: Fulfilling the Writ of Librarianship

Not all libraries are created equal, and the libraries that exist within prison spaces (if at all) are a prime example.  Those working in prison libraries face issues of security, the temptation to engage in self-censorship and other impediments to providing what users need, and overcoming the challenges unique to their settings. As Kelly Jensen shared recently, libraries within carceral institutions (e.g. prisons, jails, detention centers, etc.) run the gamut of different forms of existence. These include: funded library collections run by trained, educated librarians; unfunded, donation-based collections run by correctional staff without any formal training or education; bookcarts in the care of chapel services; complete nonexistence; and any combination thereof. Likewise, access to materials for those who are incarcerated varies from institution to institution. The inability to access any materials at all because they simply do not exist or library hours and policies restrict access are in and of themselves the purest form of censorship. 

In spaces where libraries do exist, whether the incarcerated actually have access is a function of hours of operation and prison policy. Hours of operation often conflict with work assignments, and if your “job” falls under the category of “essential” (plumber, electrician, etc.), the chances that you will be able to visit a library are slim to none, unless you are on a legal deadline and need to do research in a prison’s law library. Institutional policies also have an effect on who can access the library, when it can be accessed, what materials are available, and which materials can or cannot be accessed by a specific incarcerated individual. Navigating these policies is a constant challenge for those charged with providing library services to the incarcerated, the carceral librarian.

Carceral librarians are called upon to walk the fine line between being a librarian and being a correctional employee. Dr. Tammi Arford writes in her dissertation, Captive Knowledge: Censorship and Control in Prison Libraries, “prison librarians are typically expected to simultaneously fulfill the duties of a public or school librarian (providing information about and access to materials), provide rehabilitation or reentry programs and services (oftentimes with few or no resources from the administration), as well as assist custody staff in maintaining order and discipline within the institution.” 

Considering the duality of “correctional” and “librarian,” those working in these positions often have to make a choice as to which mindset prevails on any given day. Sometimes, that choice is made for them. We must therefore ask: how does a librarian working in this space fulfill the writ of librarianship while working in a place filled with restrictions?

Issues of Security

Carceral librarians often contend with issues of security, such as institutional lockdowns. As stated previously, the inability to access materials amounts to censorship; as such, when an institution is in “lockdown”–a security term where, for various reasons, no movement is allowed–the incarcerated are unable to access the library and its materials. A prime example of this occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, where those who were incarcerated were oftentimes confined to their living areas without access to library materials or information in general outside of tablet communications, limited phone use, or consumable media via television (if available in housing units). 

Other security concerns deal with things that have become more mainstream such as banned or restricted books and publications. Though the negative effects are often talked about in terms of families, friends, and outside organizations trying to send in books and publications to their loved ones, librarians on the inside are also affected. In state prisons where they employ trained, educated librarians and provide collection development budgets, the issue of prohibited materials lists directly impacts a librarian’s ability to create and maintain accessible, inclusive collections for their incarcerated patrons. 

In states like California, librarians trying to purchase materials must first ensure their asks adhere to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)’s “Disapproved Publications” list*. They must further contend with weekly updates of this list, which prompt the removal of items already part of the established collection. When asked if library staff have any recourse when faced with these removal orders, one librarian shared that no process exists for an internal challenge, and the unit which manages the policies and procedures has no interest in any input from library staff. 

Speaking further, they lamented that librarians have no say in policy, but any correctional mailroom employee at any institution can determine whether a publication should be considered for inclusion on the disapproved list. These “considerations” are reviewed by a four-person panel consisting of three higher-ranked correctional officers and one office administrator. Predictably, the mailroom employee’s determinations are approved, as the process is more data-entry than evaluation. The panel does not see or evaluate the item(s) in question but it instead relies on only what is noted by mailroom staff on the relevant form (CDCR Form 1819). 

Considering this “process,” it is not at all surprising to learn that California prisons have seen a massive increase in items placed on their disapproved list over the past nine months. This scenario, unfortunately, is commonplace in other carceral institutions throughout the country. 

Self-Censorship

Prisons that use loosely defined review policies or that don’t maintain a list of prohibited materials, opting instead to use a “case-by-case” approach to materials review, run the risk of institutional libraries self-censoring out of caution. Correctional librarians in New York State, like any library, submit their purchase orders for approval to the senior librarian at each institution. These senior librarians are accountable to the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) Division of Library Services. The DOCCS website states: “Senior Librarians select library materials based on a systematic selection process designed to determine and meet library service standards and educational, informational, vocational, recreational, and re-entry needs of the facility incarcerated population.” 

What is missing from this description is any mention of guidelines to determine whether an item might be prohibited from purchase due to a restricted materials policy. Out of an abundance of caution–or the correctional mindset–items are inevitably excluded.

Other states, like Minnesota, follow prison contraband policies to guide their collection development. These are the same policies that dictate the materials allowed to be sent into facilities from outside sources. Though Minnesota’s prohibited content policy is less restrictive compared to other state’s correctional systems, any attempt to follow a policy not specific to library services can and should be seen as self-censoring.

Working Within and Working Around

There is some good news: some correctional librarians create their collection development plans with a “whole person” mindset to ensure that their incarcerated patrons are properly served.  Though these librarians work in states where a restricted items list exist, they are able to or attempt to order titles with similar content to fulfill the information needs of their patrons. And sometimes, a librarian is given the support and trust by their supervisor and administration of the institution to order materials without pushback as long as the item(s) are not already restricted. 

A former librarian with the Michigan Department of Corrections spoke about her experience with collection development and relayed how she was allowed to purchase materials on topics such as “invention of race and black history of discrimination.” She also filled in the “completely missing LGBTQ+ section.”  To her incarcerated clerks who grumbled about those kinds of books not belonging in prison, she replied, “in here it is a LIBRARY,” implying a space open to all, for all, with collections reflective of all. 

The conversation was a pleasant surprise in a time when “woke” topics like these are vilified and banned both within prisons and without.

Other correctional librarians follow this same mindset, ordering materials as if they are doing so for their public counterparts. They suggest taking recommendations from other prison staff, especially if items being purchased will be used to support educational or other programming. That said, they give the caveat that some materials might violate content policies, so be prepared to withdraw items. In essence, ask forgiveness, not permission.

What’s Next

Just as the landscape of public and academic librarianship is ever changing and evolving, so too is carceral librarianship. Prison librarians and the patrons they serve have often been siloed off from the conversations surrounding censorship, but this is changing. 

Efforts by organizations like the American Library Association to highlight topics around prisons and libraries and the San Francisco Public Library’s Mellon Foundation grant-funded Expanding Information Access for Incarcerated People Initiative have given this demographic a space to connect, share, and strategize with each other both virtually and in person. 

The space given to talk about what is often a sensitive subject–censorship–is appreciated by those librarians working in the carceral field. There is power in community and collective knowledge. As carceral librarians continue to work with the duality of their positions top of mind, I take solace in knowing that they are doing what they can within the constraints of their institutions to make a difference for their patrons. It is up to those on the outside to continue to shed light on the censorship practices behind bars and advocate for the constitutional right to information access. 

*Lists of restricted books vary state-by-state, including if available externally via websites or only internally. These lists are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

***

Additional readings on prison censorship include this exploration of how prison censorship is part of slavery’s legacy, a deep dive into where and how censorship thrives in prisons, and prison censorship expert Michelle Dillon’s reminder that we cannot forget people experiencing incarceration in our anti-censorship work. In 2024, we ran three moving pieces from justice-impacted individuals on the impact of censorship on their lives, too: Free Prison Tablets Aren’t Actually Free by Ezzial Williams, Uninspired Reading by Ken Meyers, and Mark Twain Goes to Prison by Derek Trumbo.

You can also dive into the trove of prison censorship and prison librarianship resources shared by Blumberg and his colleagues from their presentation earlier this summer.

Book Censorship News: August 14, 2026
  • Massachusetts has officially become the 14th state to pass a Freedom to Read bill. The state’s governor signed it this week.
  • How two school board candidates in Clay County, Florida, are talking about book bans in their campaign. They’re excited to be leaders on this front.
  • Montezuma-Cortez School District (CO) has decided to adapt Texas’s Bible-infused reading curriculum for their public school. I said this wouldn’t stop in Texas; it’s part of a federal-level plan to shove Bible reading into public school curriculum (ignoring other religious views along the way).
  • Peoria Unified School District (AZ) is pulling and prohibiiting use of several books by and about people of color from curriculum due to banning of DEI in the district. Titles include Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave by Frederick Douglass, A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry, and Summer of the Mariposas by Guadalupe Garcia McCall.
  • Parents aren’t happy about the above Peoria Unified School District pulling those books.
  • St. Albert Public Library (Alberta, Canada) estimates that it will cost over $100,000 to implement the provincial government’s book ban legislation. What a waste of taxpayer money! Here’s some more about the cost of these provincial book bans.
  • Knox County School Board (TN)–recall this is where Roots was banned last school year, alongside dozens and dozens of other books–just saw their board turn more democratic in the last election. People don’t want their school boards banning books.
  • Among the new ways Arkansas libraries are dealing with the draconinan book banning and censorship law allowed to be implemented: “The Independence County Library in Batesville announced July 31 via Facebook that it would no longer allow patrons under 18 to check out manga content — comic books and graphic novels that originate from Japan — and adult-oriented graphic novels.”
  • McCook School Board (NE) is considering setting up an alert that parents can know everything about what their children borrow from school libraries.
  • Among many other changes, Cullman County Public Library (AL) has completely removed their young adult section in the public library. This is as a result of the Alabama laws related to book appropriateness and the library not even wanting to deal with it. Those books have been put into adult fiction, making them harder to find and access for teens. Recall: this is the point.
  • “The book “Barbie Today” by Elizabeth Andrews will remain in the New Braunfels Independent School District [TX] library catalog after the board of trustees sided with the challenge review committee during a regular board meeting Monday.” If you’re wondering why a Barbie book, it’s because, according to the parent with too much time on their hands and a brain turned absolute soup by Fox News, it’s “woke” and “discusses climate change as fact,” as well as discusses Black Lives Matter. IT’S A BARBIE BOOK.
  • Remember how Escambia County Public Libraries (FL) made a politically-motivated hire for their new library director in someone with zero library experience? Guess who has resigned after four months. The poor people trying to use this library, which has also been subject to numerous book bans.
  • There’s a forthcoming PBS docuseries about Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Among the topics it’ll tackle? Book bans in the schools. It sounds like great viewing, especially as a companion to the documentary An American Pastoral, which digs into the partisan school board election that led to book bans in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania.
  • At least one school trustee in Redlands Schools (CA)–which has been a board repeatedly bringing up book bans and curricular censorship–thinks school librarians should create “balanced” collections and be required to provide opposing viewpoints in their materials. From the story: ““If library material can reasonably be considered to be political in nature (focused on previous or current presidents, presidential family members, controversial political/social issues, political movements or activists), material with the opposing viewpoint shall also be added to the library,” the proposed additional language stated.” So I guess that might mean Holocaust denial books alongside Holocaust books? The job of a librarian is providing fact, not conspiracy.
  • North Carolina’s new law allows anyone in a community to start complaining about books in school libraries, even if they don’t have students in the schools.