The purpose of this research is to explore the increasing threats of censorship in libraries, the laws supporting or opposing censorship, and the impact of censorship on librarians through the use of language and rhetoric. Through examining the current political climate surrounding libraries, censorshipm and diversity, I hope to emphasize how libraries can become involved in the promotion and protection of intellectual freedom and democracy by advocacy, policy making, and popular mobilization (i.e. solidarity with each other). The primary method of research is comparing legislative texts, national advocacy organizations, and case studies. Restrictive and protective approaches to intellectual freedom were compared using Idaho HB710, Alabama HB385, California AB1825, and Vermont Act 150 legislative documents. Idaho and Alabama bills were used for their definition of “harmful materials” and for procedural aspects of criminal charges as examples of state policies restricting free inquiry; California and Vermont bills were used as examples of states protecting intellectual freedom. The primary conclusion is that libraries cannot afford to be censored in order to provide equal access to information and to promote the democratic principles they serve. Through lobbying for protective policies, raising public awareness, forming legal relationships, and obtaining continued federal support, libraries will be able to stand up against these pressures and restate their commitment of delivering needed services to all members of society.
