Librarians fear new penalties, even prison terms, as activists challenge books

When an illustrated edition of Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale” was released in 2019, teachers in Clayton, Missouri, needed little discussion before deciding to keep copies in middle school libraries. The book is widely considered a classic work of dystopian literature about the oppression of women, and a graphic novel would help it reach teens who struggle only with words.

But after Missouri lawmakers passed a law in 2022 that exposed librarians to fines and possible prison sentences for allowing sexually explicit material on bookshelves, suburban St. Louis County reconsidered and rescinded the new Atwood edition .

“There’s a depiction of a rape scene, a handmaid being forced into a sexual act,” said Tom Bober, Clayton district library coordinator and president of the Missouri Association of School Librarians. “It’s literally one panel of the graphic novel, but we felt this was against Missouri law.”

Across the country, book challenges and bans have risen to the highest levels in decades. Public and school libraries have been inundated with complaints from community members and conservative organizations such as Moms for Liberty. Increasingly, lawmakers are considering new punishments — crippling lawsuits, hefty fines and even prison sentences — for distributing books that some consider inappropriate.

The trend comes as officials try to define terms like “obscene” and “harmful.” Many of the conflicts involve material with racial and/or LGBTQ+ themes, such as Toni Morrison’s novel, “The Bluest Eye,” and Maia Kobabe’s memoir, “Gender Queer.” And while there is no librarian or teacher in prison, the threat alone has led to more self-censorship.

This year, lawmakers in more than fifteen states have introduced bills to impose harsh penalties on libraries and librarians.

Utah passed legislation in March that gives the state’s attorney general the authority to enforce a new system for challenging and removing “sensitive” books from school settings. The law also creates a panel to monitor compliance and violations.

Awaiting Idaho Gov. Brad Little’s signature is a bill that would give local prosecutors the authority to file charges against public and school libraries if they fail to remove “harmful” materials from children.

“The laws are intended to limit or eliminate legal protections that libraries have enjoyed for decades,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom.

Since the early 1960s, institutions such as schools, libraries, and museums—as well as teachers, librarians, and other staffers who distribute materials to children—have been largely exempt from costly lawsuits or potential criminal charges.

These protections began popping up in states as America grappled with obscenity standards defined by the Supreme Court in 1973.

In ruling 5-4 in Miller v. California, the justices said that obscene material is not automatically protected by the First Amendment, and offered three criteria that must be met to be labeled obscene: whether the work, taken as a whole, appeals to ‘prurient’ interest,” whether “the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,” and whether the work lacks “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” .

Ultimately, almost every state introduced protections for teachers, librarians, and museum officials, among others, who provide information to minors.

“Until recently, police and prosecutors could not bring charges against public libraries for material that makes certain people uncomfortable. These exemptions have prevented false prosecutions of teachers over health and sexuality curricula, art, theater and difficult subjects in English classes,” according to a 2023 report from EveryLibrary, a national political action committee that opposes censorship.

Arkansas and Indiana last year targeted teachers and librarians with criminalization laws. Tennessee criminalized publishers who provided “obscene” material to public schools.

Some Republicans want sanctions and restrictions that apply to the entire country. Referring to “pornography” in the foreword to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a possible second Donald Trump administration, the right-wing group’s president, Kevin Roberts, wrote that “the people who produce and distribute it must be imprisoned put. Educators and public librarians who distribute this should be classified as registered sex offenders.”

The Arkansas version was temporarily blocked by a federal judge after a coalition of librarians and publishers challenged the legality of subjecting librarians and booksellers to criminal charges if they provide “harmful” material to minors.

Indiana lawmakers eliminated “educational purposes” as a defense for school librarians and teachers accused of giving “obscene” or “harmful” material to minors – crimes punishable by up to 2.5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The law also requires public catalogs of what is in each school library and systems for responding to complaints.

Indiana’s law went into effect on January 1. It’s likely a matter of when — not if — a lawsuit is filed, and the fear has created a chilling effect.

“It sows fear in some people. It’s very scary,” said Diane Rogers, a school librarian who is president of the Indiana Library Federation. “If you are a certified teacher, being charged with a crime can result in losing your license, even if you are found innocent. That is a very serious matter.”

Rogers said she is confident that Indiana school libraries do not carry obscene materials, but she has seen reports that some districts have moved certain titles to higher age groups or required parental permission to view them.

A list from PEN America shows that 300 titles have been removed from school libraries in 11 Missouri counties after lawmakers banned “sexually explicit” material in 2022, which carries a penalty of up to one year in prison or a $2,000 fine. The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri and library groups challenged the law last year, but it remains in effect pending a motion for the state to intervene.

“Gender Queer” is another title no longer available to high school students in Clayton, where district officials recently turned their attention to Mike Curato’s graphic novel “Flamer,” about a teen struggling with his sexual identity and how to adapt Boy Scout camp. The American Library Association has included ‘Flamer’ on its list of the most challenged and/or banned books of 2023.

“We had a lot of conversations about how to interpret the law and not violate it,” Bober said. “But we also didn’t want to exaggerate and over-censor our collections. With ‘Flamer’ we didn’t feel like we were breaking the law.”