Why Communities Have Always Decided What Goes on the Shelves (And Why That’s Not Censorship)
If you’ve been following the library battles in Mat-Su, or similar fights across America, you’ve probably heard some version of this: “Parents are banning books! They’re censoring materials! It’s just like Nazi Germany!”
The rhetoric is loud. The comparisons are inflammatory. And the argument is completely wrong.
Here’s what’s actually happening: communities are exercising the same curation authority they’ve had for 200 years. And a well funded activist apparatus is trying to convince you that normal library stewardship is somehow a threat to democracy.
Let me explain why they’re wrong. And why this matters for every parent in America.
The Fifth Circuit Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud
In May 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that made activists lose their minds. The case was Little v. Llano County, and it involved a Texas library that removed some books from its collection.
Patrons sued, claiming their First Amendment “right to receive information” had been violated. The court’s response was chef’s kiss perfect:
“Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend. All Llano County has done here is what libraries have been doing for two centuries: decide what books they want in the collection.”
Read that again. Two centuries.
Libraries have ALWAYS curated their collections. That’s not a bug. It’s the entire purpose of libraries.
But the activists at PEN America, the American Library Association, and their well funded allies don’t want you to know this history. Because if you understood how libraries actually work, their “book ban” narrative would collapse immediately.
Let’s Talk About What Libraries Actually Do
Here’s a simple question: Does your local library carry every book ever published?
Of course not. That would be impossible. Every library in America makes thousands of selection decisions each year:
Which new releases to purchase
Which older books to keep or remove
How much shelf space to allocate to different genres
What’s appropriate for youth sections vs. adult sections
When materials are outdated, damaged, or irrelevant
This process is called collection development, and librarians have formal professional standards for it. One common tool is the MUSTIE acronym:
Misleading
Ugly (physically deteriorated)
Superseded (by newer editions)
Trivial (limited value)
Irrelevant (to community needs)
Elsewhere (easily available elsewhere)
When a library removes a 1987 computer programming manual because it’s outdated, nobody calls that censorship.
When a library declines to purchase a self published conspiracy theory book, nobody protests.
When a library moves a deteriorating book to storage, nobody accuses them of book burning.
But when a library removes sexually explicit material from the youth section because it violates state obscenity laws? Suddenly it’s a crisis threatening democracy itself.
That’s not intellectual consistency. That’s political theater.
The Legal Framework (Or: Why Courts Keep Siding with Libraries)
Let me hit you with some case law that activists really don’t want you to read.
United States v. American Library Association (2003)
The Supreme Court held that libraries are not public forums where all viewpoints must be represented. Instead, libraries have broad discretion to curate collections based on their educational mission and community standards.
Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
“A library’s failure to acquire a book does not violate the First Amendment.”
Think about what that means. If choosing not to buy a book isn’t censorship, how can removing a book that violates state law be censorship?
Board of Education v. Pico (1982)
This case is constantly misrepresented by activists. They claim it prevents libraries from removing books. It doesn’t.
The plurality opinion (not even a majority) said school boards can’t remove books “simply because they dislike the ideas.”
But. And this is crucial, the opinion explicitly allows removal of materials that are:
“Pervasively vulgar”
“Educationally unsuitable”
Inappropriate for the age group
That’s exactly what parents in Mat-Su and communities nationwide are asking for.
Little v. Llano County (2025)
This year’s Fifth Circuit ruling went even further. The court held that library collection decisions are “government speech”, meaning libraries express community values through their selections.
Translation: Libraries don’t just passively provide access to everything. They actively curate to reflect the values and priorities of the communities they serve.
Patrons cannot invoke a “right to receive information” to force libraries to carry specific titles. Libraries choose. That’s their job.
Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
And here’s the big one that nobody wants to talk about: The Supreme Court explicitly held that states can restrict minors’ access to sexually explicit material, even when that same material is protected speech for adults.
The Court recognized that children are a “special class” deserving additional protection.
Alaska Statute § 11.61.128 is based on this principle. It makes it a felony to distribute indecent material to minors under 16. That includes:
Graphic descriptions of sexual acts
Depictions of masturbation
Explicit sexual content
Material that appeals to prurient interest
Libraries must comply with state law. Full stop.
The Trick They’re Using to Confuse You
Here’s how the “book ban” narrative works. It’s actually quite clever:
STEP 1: Conflate three completely different categories of books
Category A: Books about diverse families and identities (two dads, different races, cultural experiences)
Category B: Books about LGBTQ+ teens’ everyday lives (coming out, dating, acceptance)
Category C: Books with graphic sexual content that violate obscenity statutes
STEP 2: When parents challenge Category C books, show them pictures of Category A books
STEP 3: Accuse parents of trying to ban Categories A and B
It’s intellectually dishonest. And it’s deliberate.
What Parents Are Actually Challenging
Let me be crystal clear: No one in Mat-Su is trying to remove:
Books about families with two moms or two dads
Books about kids navigating racial identity
Biographies of LGBTQ+ historical figures
Books exploring cultural diversity
Stories featuring LGBTQ+ characters in age appropriate contexts
Parents ARE challenging:
Books with graphic descriptions of sexual acts
Books that depict masturbation in explicit detail
Books with sexual content that would be illegal to distribute under Alaska law
Books placed in youth sections despite being inappropriate for that age group
There’s a world of difference between:
✓ A book about a teenager with two dads navigating high school → Appropriate
✗ A book with illustrated instructions for sexual experimentation → Inappropriate
✓ A book about a trans teen’s experience of acceptance → Appropriate
✗ A book with graphic sexual content between minors → Inappropriate
The activists know this. They conflate these categories anyway because it’s effective rhetoric.
Don’t fall for it.
A Quick History Lesson: Libraries Were Always Community Institutions
The American public library movement began in the mid-1800s. Andrew Carnegie alone funded over 2,500 libraries across America.
The deal was simple: Carnegie provided the building. The community decided what went in it.
For most of library history, this was completely uncontroversial:
1850s-1950s: Libraries reflected community values. Local boards (elected or appointed by local officials) determined collection policies. Parents were seen as partners in serving children.
1960s-1970s: Libraries maintained strong relationships with communities while expanding collections. Parental concerns about materials were addressed through local processes.
1980s: The American Library Association began its ideological shift. The “Library Bill of Rights” was expanded to emphasize “intellectual freedom” for minors over parental authority.
1990s-2000s: The ALA increasingly framed parental oversight as censorship. Professional librarians’ judgment was elevated above community input.
2010s-2020s: The ALA began aggressively promoting sexually explicit material under the banner of “diversity and inclusion.” Parents who objected were labeled bigots and censors.
What changed wasn’t the principle of community curation. What changed was who gets to do the curating.
The ALA, a private professional association with its own political agenda, decided that national ideology should trump local control.
And they’ve been remarkably successful at convincing people that this ideological position is somehow legally required.
It’s not.
Let’s Address the “Book Banning” Language Manipulation
Words matter. And activists are very good at using language to manipulate perception.
When they say “book ban,” what do they actually mean? Let’s look at what’s being called “book banning” in America today:
❌ Removing books from youth sections while keeping them in adult sections
❌ Choosing not to purchase certain books for school libraries
❌ Moving books to restricted areas requiring parental permission
❌ Following state obscenity laws
❌ Declining to stock every book a publisher releases
None of these are “bans.”
A ban means the book cannot be obtained anywhere. That’s not what’s happening. Books that aren’t in your library are still:
✓ Available for purchase on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and countless other retailers
✓ Available in other libraries (often just a few miles away)
✓ Available as ebooks and audiobooks
✓ Available through interlibrary loan
✓ Legal to own, read, and share
✓ Free to be published and distributed
So when someone says Mat-Su is “banning books,” what they actually mean is: “Mat-Su isn’t using taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit material to minors in the youth section of public libraries.”
That’s not a ban. That’s stewardship.
The Real Question (That Nobody Wants to Answer)
Here’s what this debate is actually about:
Who decides what belongs in taxpayer funded collections designated for minors?
Option 1:
Elected officials accountable to voters
Citizen advisory committees representing the community
Parents exercising constitutional rights
Option 2:
The American Library Association (a private organization in Chicago)
Library administrators who refuse to attend advisory committee meetings
Outside consultants paid with federal funds
In Mat-Su, we’ve been dealing with Option 2. And it hasn’t worked well.
The Mat-Su Story You Need to Know
Our Library Citizens’ Advisory Committee (LCAC) has repeatedly reviewed and voted to remove sexually explicit material from youth sections. These aren’t close calls, books with graphic sexual content that clearly violate Alaska obscenity statutes.
What happened? Administrators ignored or overrode the decisions.
When concerned citizens exposed that the Borough was using federal E-Rate telecommunications funds to pay an outside consultant (who happened to train libraries on how to resist community input), they were attacked and called conspiracy theorists.
Only after sustained public pressure did Borough Manager Mike Sutton cancel the contract, effectively confirming the citizens’ concerns were valid.
Meanwhile, the Library Board vice chair publicly stated that community members are “unqualified” to determine what belongs in their own library.
Think about that. You are supposedly “unqualified” to have an opinion about what your tax dollars fund.
That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how community institutions are supposed to function.
What About “The Librarians” Documentary?
If you’ve been in these debates online, someone has probably thrown “The Librarians” documentary at you as proof that book challenges are censorship.
The film premiered at Sundance, has been praised by activists, and it’s very well made. It’s also deeply misleading.
The documentary shows:
Footage of Nazi book burnings (to set the emotional tone)
Parents at school board meetings objecting to books
Librarians portrayed as heroes defending democracy
Students saying they feel “erased” when books are challenged
What the documentary deliberately omits:
The actual content of the challenged books
State obscenity laws
Recent court decisions supporting library curation
The distinction between identity focused books and sexually explicit material
It’s advocacy filmmaking designed to make you feel that any book challenge is comparable to Nazism.
Don’t fall for it. Watch the film if you want, but understand what it is: propaganda, not documentation.
The Constitutional Framework Actually Supports Parents
Despite what activists claim, the Constitution supports parental authority and community curation:
Parental Rights:
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923): Parents have liberty interest in directing children’s upbringing
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925): “The child is not the mere creature of the State”
Troxel v. Granville (2000): Parents have fundamental right protected by Due Process Clause
Parham v. J.R. (1979): Courts must presume fit parents make best decisions for children
Protection of Minors:
Ginsberg v. New York (1968): States can restrict minors’ access to sexually explicit material
Miller v. California (1973): Obscenity determined by “contemporary community standards”
Library Authority:
United States v. ALA (2003): Libraries have discretion over collections
Little v. Llano County (2025): Collection decisions are government speech
The legal framework is clear. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that:
Parents have constitutional authority to direct their children’s upbringing
States can protect minors from sexually explicit material
Libraries can curate their collections
Community standards matter
Why This Matters Beyond Mat-Su
If you’re reading this from outside Mat-Su, you might think: “This doesn’t affect me.”
Wrong.
This same pattern is playing out in communities across America:
Parents discover sexually explicit material in youth sections
They go through proper channels to raise concerns
Administrators trained by the ALA resist
Outside groups flood meetings with activists
Parents are accused of censorship and bigotry
Local news frames it as “book banning”
National organizations file lawsuits
Communities are pressured to back down
It’s a coordinated strategy. And it’s working, because most parents don’t have time to fight lengthy battles with well funded advocacy organizations.
But here’s what gives me hope: The law is on parents’ side. The Constitution protects parental authority. Courts have affirmed libraries’ right to curate.
When communities stand firm on protecting children from sexually explicit material while respecting intellectual freedom, they win.
What You Can Do
If you care about this issue, whether in Mat-Su or your own community, here’s what helps:
Understand the Distinction
Not every book challenge is the same. Learn to distinguish between:
Legitimate concerns about sexually explicit content
Overreach that targets books about identity or history
Know the Law
Familiarize yourself with:
Your state’s obscenity statute (Alaska: § 11.61.128)
Key Supreme Court cases (Ginsberg, Troxel, Pico)
Recent Fifth Circuit ruling (Little v. Llano County)
Get Involved Locally
Attend library board meetings
Join or create citizen advisory committees
Run for school board or local office
Support candidates who respect parental authority
Push Back on Bad Language
When someone says “book ban,” ask:
“Can I still buy this book online?”
“Is it illegal to own this book?”
“Or is it just not being provided to children in a taxpayer funded youth section?”
Language matters. Don’t let activists control the narrative.
Support Parents Who Speak Up
When parents raise concerns at meetings, they’re often:
Called bigots and censors
Accused of targeting LGBTQ+ people
Compared to Nazis
Harassed on social media
These parents are exercising constitutional rights to protect their children. Thank them. Support them. Join them.
The Bottom Line
Libraries can curate their collections. The Fifth Circuit just confirmed it. The Supreme Court has affirmed it for decades. Communities have done it for two centuries.
Not selecting a book is not censorship.
Following state obscenity laws is not book burning.
Exercising parental authority is not bigotry.
Protecting children from sexually explicit material is not comparable to Nazism.
The activists know this. They use inflammatory rhetoric anyway because it’s effective.
But when you understand the actual law, the actual history, and what parents are actually asking for, their narrative collapses.
Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning books.
Communities are simply exercising the same stewardship authority they’ve always had: determining which books belong on the shelves of their taxpayer funded libraries.
That’s not censorship. That’s curation.
And it’s exactly what libraries were designed to do.
A Final Word
I believe in parental rights, community standards, and common sense. I believe taxpayer funded institutions should serve the communities that fund them. Not national activist organizations.
And I believe that when parents ask that sexually explicit material not be available to children in public library youth sections, that’s not censorship. That’s responsible stewardship.
If you agree, I’d still appreciate your engagement in this conversation.
Because ultimately, this isn’t about left vs. right or conservative vs. liberal.
It’s about who decides what’s appropriate for children: parents who love them, or activists who’ve never met them.
I choose parents. Every time.
Dana Raffaniello
Mat-Su Borough District 2
Share this post if you found it helpful. And if you’re fighting similar battles in your community, know that you’re not alone. And the law is on your side.
Additional Resources
Legal Decisions:
Little v. Llano County, No. 22-51089 (5th Cir. May 23, 2025)
United States v. American Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (2003)
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)
Alaska Law:
Alaska Statute § 11.61.128 – Distribution of Indecent Material to Minors
Questions or Comments? Leave them below. I read every one.