[smithoc]

Important to note that "banned" here means "a school chose not to have this book in their library".

It's an annoying abuse of language. "Banned Books" has historically meant people are getting arrested for possessing the books or stores are being prevented from selling it or publishers are being prevented from producing it.

This is essentially a clickbait title for "People disagree about what is age-appropriate content for a public school to provide to children".

[torben-friis]

Depends on your definition of people:

>The report also found that challenges are becoming more coordinated and politically driven: 92% came from pressure groups, decision-makers or government officials, compared with 72% in 2024. By contrast, 2.7% were attributed to parents and 1.4% to individual library users.

So this isn't librarians, parents or even neighbours deciding something isn't appropriate.

The article also seems to refer to libraries in general, as opposed to school libraries alone, except on a specific paragraph.

[rahimnathwani]

Why do you assume librarians aren't part of the 'government official's group?

[torben-friis]

The linked website has further information. It splits the 92% into boards, elected officials and pressure groups.

That and, have you met librarians? They aren't conspiring to censor Sarah Maas, I can tell you that.

[rahimnathwani]

The web site says: "The ALA defines a “challenge” as an attempt to remove or restrict access to a library resource, while a “ban” refers to the removal of materials from a library"

Page 10 of the report has a chart that breaks down what type of people are responsible for an 'attempt to remove' books from a library. Librarians themselves are not listed as one of the groups:

It seems they only count it as 'censorship' or a 'challenge' if it's someone other than a librarian taking the action.

If I've understood correctly, if librarians (alone or in groups) decide that certain books should not be procured, the ALA would count this as a censorship or ban.

[TheCoelacanth]

> ALA defines a “ban” as the removal of materials from a library based on the objections of a person or group. A “challenge” is an attempt to have a library resource removed, or access to it restricted, based on the objections of a person or group.

Under that definition, it doesn't seem to me like it would be possible for a "ban" to happen without also being a "challenge".

[like_any_other]

The article is indeed very careful to never tell us how much of this is school libraries.

[js2]

Sibling comments have made their point. I'll just add:

“But the book was on the shelf…”

“On the shelf? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find it.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the book, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on a shelf in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

[abernard1]

Amazing that choice of curricula for elementary schoolchildren draws such a reaction.

Kids can read whatever they and their parents want. Schools don't have to teach it.

[raxxorraxor]

While true, that is the same reasoning when people said that it isn't censorship if government isn't one actor involved or it isn't censorship if you just de-platform people.

It fails to grasp the core issue, where some people have the ambition to act as a barrier to information. The implementation is secondary. You are correct that a school library is a very poor case or an invalid one of course. The general tendency for more censorship is probably real though. I wouldn't expect a Guardian article if the books were associated with different political leaning though.

[ImPostingOnHN]

This is incorrect. The article is talking about book bans at public libraries and school libraries alike.

The linked censorship search portal [0] lets you filter by "# Count of Challenges at Public Libraries" > 0.

0 – https://www.ala.org/bbooks/censorship-search-portal

[barbazoo]

I'd call that "not making publicly available" via the library system rather than banning. As parent said, you can still buy these books and share with or sell them to each other.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I'd call it "banning books from public libraries", since that's a clear description. Contrary to what GP claimed, this is indeed public libraries, not just school libraries.

Whatever you want to call it, IMO public libraries shouldn't ban books, especially based on some radical PAC's opinions about what jesus would want or whatever.

[JohnMakin]

If I 'choose not to let you post on my website' would you consider this a ban? This reads like a really dishonest shifting of the goalpost for what is effectively censorship of literature. And, if you look at some of the books that were "chose not to have this book in their library" it overwhelmingly focuses on books that feature queer characters, or discuss these themes. Any honest observer knows exactly what is going on here, and as others have noted, this was not limited to school libraries.

[hitekker]

Yeah, it's a word game. The other side does it? Evil banning. We do it? Morally correct curation.

I remember one time some libraries banned non-equity-promoting books and then backtracked and called it "deaccession" https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-school-board-lib...

Right wing and left wing people love roleplaying as freedom fighters against the forces of evil.

[KumaBear]

I mean you can find scripture and if anyone has read that it’s not for children. Yet no objections

[siliconpotato]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65794363 The author John Green who was top of a recent list said that the Bible was number 6 on the list. As other comments have pointed out, a "ban" is where a library has chosen not to stock a book for reasons including response to a complaint. If school library serves children up to the age of 13, then certain explicit fiction is not appropriate and would be expected to be removed.

[bigfishrunning]

People object to scripture all the time. You're arguably doing it right now.