Book Censorship News, August 14, 2026

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

by Aaron Blumberg

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.