Four Freedom to Read Bills to Follow Right Now: Book Censorship News, February 6, 2026

There are currently freedom to read bills under consideration in three states: Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. An additional one is currently on deck in Virginia as well, though the details of that are worthy of a little more discernment. These are in addition to the 13 similar bills that have already passed. The titles of each of these bills vary slightly, with most framing the legislation as “Right to Read” or “Freedom to Read.” While these bills are only as good as they are enforced, and they mainly address only one aspect under the umbrella of book censorship, they represent significant progress in slowing the flood of book censorship nationwide. States like Maryland have been shining examples of where and how enforcement of these bills really gives them teeth, as the state’s board of education stepped in to overturn a school-level ban last fall.

If the information you’re reading here sounds familiar, it’s because some of it is. But this post is an update on what’s happening, as well as additional insight into who is working on the ground and how you can get involved. There’s also a really moving series of letters from students to legislators explaining why they deserve the right to read.

What Are “Freedom to Read” Bills?

In general, there are two types of anti-book ban bills being passed at the state level. The first ties a pool of money to libraries that create policies asserting they will not ban books. That agreement may involve proving the library has a policy in place against book banning modeled after the American Library Association’s Freedom to Read statement or one that is more specific to the particular institution. If the library has these things, the library sends proof to the designated official in the state, and they receive a small grant to use for the library.

In Illinois, those grants have ranged from $800 to $2000, which, for many libraries, is a decent sum. This style of anti-book ban bill does not require compliance, and as reported by the Chicago Tribune, many places throughout the state have simply chosen not to accept the grant money. These bills can apply to public libraries only, to public school libraries only, or to both simultaneously, depending on each state’s legislation.

The second type of anti-book ban bill strengthens protections for librarians’ jobs. These bills codify that librarians, as part of their job, can deny book bans and defend a book’s presence in the collection. Librarians are experts with the knowledge and resources to make developmentally—and community—appropriate collection decisions. As such, when they defend a book’s inclusion in a library, their jobs will not be on the line. These bills are meant to encourage librarians to do the work. They’re a safety net for library workers who’ve been engaged in anti-censorship measures in their libraries.

But like other anti-book ban bills, these measures do not require librarians to do anything. Indeed, those already deeply engaged in quiet/silent censorship can continue unfettered. In some cases, such legislation further emboldens those who don’t purchase materials or inappropriately “weed” them because they can make the claim they’re doing the thing that’s best for their community (what they mean is they don’t want to do their jobs and are instead either in agreement with the complaints or are complying in advance).

These two broad categories of anti-book ban bills can overlap. Politicians who draft or sponsor these bills try to do so with an eye toward what has the best chance of passing, which is why each piece of legislation differs. That’s also why sometimes you’ll see several pieces of legislation addressing all of these parts separately. In at least one state–Rhode Island–the Freedom to Read Bill also ensures protections for authors and creators. In an era where right-wing politicians and their sycophants are eager to label anything and anyone obscene or pornographic, such protections ensure the freedom to create remains fundamental.

As always, it’s worth noting that most of these bills address one type of book censorship: the banning part. There are, however, Four Rs of book censorship, a term and classification coined by Dr. Emily Knox:

• Removal, also known as a book ban.
  
• Restriction, or the intentional inability for books to be accessed by all who may want them. This would be putting books behind a desk so that people must ask to borrow them and may be denied if they don’t meet specific requirements.

• Redaction, the intentional editing or removal of material from a work. Cy-Fair Independent School District (TX) did this when it elected to omit sections from textbooks used by students that it disagreed with. Another example would be drawing underwear on a character in a book who may be nude, as was done several times in libraries in the ’70s and ’80s with Maurice Sendak’s In The Night Kitchen.

• Relocation, the intentional moving of a book from one area of the library to another. This is what Greenville County Libraries (SC) did with their youth LGBTQ+ books. It’s what was going on at East Hamilton Public Library (IN) before the board returned to actually serving its community rather than a few religious zealots.

Nearly all of the anti-book ban bills so far only address that last R at this point, the actual removal of books. That still leaves plenty of room for libraries to redact, restrict, and relocate materials, as well as engage in quiet/silent censorship. It’s not a complete end to book censorship, and because of how much latitude there is in what these bills require, so, too, is there plenty of room for continuing book bans even in states with these laws. Rhode Island’s bill is the first to articulate the full scope of book censorship, defining what is against the law as any attempt to “suppress, restrict, remove, or prohibit acquiring library material.”

None of this is meant to be a downer. There is something crucial in these bills: politicians working to pass anti-book ban bills are signaling to constituents that they are listening to library workers, authors, and readers, and that they care about what’s happening to libraries. They are championing the institutions being attacked. Even if their attempts are only moderately successful in addressing the issues, they’re majorly symbolic. These legislators are the ones that not only library workers should continue to get into the ears (and inboxes) of, but also every citizen concerned about what’s happening in libraries, both in their state and beyond.

Moreover, as these bills have expanded across the country, we’ve seen them become stronger and better enforced. We’ve also seen politicians hear from their constituents and address the weaknesses or flaws therein. For example, one of the criticisms that came up in the early days of Illinois’s Freedom to Read Bill–the first in the country–was that it didn’t help with one of the bigger issues in state libraries, which is funding for small and rural libraries (and even if those two things don’t sound related, they are). In response, Illinois’s State Librarian reallocated funding and increased access to more money for over 100 libraries across the state. The state also opened up grant money to bolster library security in the wake of ongoing safety issues and bomb threats.

Three Current Freedom to Read Bills on Deck–and What You Can do

Massachusetts has had some form of an anti-book ban bill kicking around the legislature for several years. In November, the state Senate passed “An Act Regarding Free Expression/S.2696.” With newly added amendments, the bill was refiled as S.2726 and referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

The bill protects school and public librarians from challenges to materials, while also limiting the types of materials that can be challenged or removed from those collections. Materials in collections must be selected by a professional with training and education in collection development, and all book challenges in schools must be recorded and reported to the state for data collection. Each school can develop its own policies regarding materials challenges, so long as discrimination isn’t among the valid reasons for challenging or removing library materials.

The Senate also added an amendment during its deliberations, which provides additional protections for authors. Authors may challenge their book’s removal from school libraries in court as well. This is similar to the bill passed in Rhode Island last year.

As of writing, this bill is not yet on the House calendar. You can keep tabs on the bill and learn how to get involved in its passage with the Massachusetts Freedom to Read coalition.

New Mexico, like Massachusetts, has been trying to pass a freedom to read bill for a couple of sessions. There’s a new one on deck for the 2026 session. House Bill 26, pre-filed by Kathleen Cates and Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, would prohibit book bans in public libraries, require there be a clear policy for where and how citizens can challenge materials in collections, protect library workers from retaliation for upholding the law, and actually create an enforcement mechanism for following the law.

Author Kit Rosewater is among those working to get these protections passed in New Mexico. Alongside several groups, including the Albuquerque Teachers Federation, Albuquerque Liberation Center, Authors Against Book Bans, and Grandparents and Allies for Truth, she and several others have officially formed Freedom to Read New Mexico. This is the go-to for getting involved on the ground with the passage of this bill.

Rosewater, in a recent school visit alongside author Laurel Goodluck, spoke with 7th through 12th graders about the current legislation. Students were fired up–they are, of course, the direct victims of censorship in the 2020s–and were eager to express their opinions and feelings with state legislators. The following are some of the letters they penned. These are published with permission and anonymity, and they include about half of the letters:

• “Honorable Governor, I believe that the freedom to read is a right all New Mexicans deserve. Banning books will achieve nothing, but in turn would strip people of all ages of one of their most basic rights. The right to read ALL books means far more than people imagine, and it is no one’s right to decide what people get to know. Knowledge is something that shouldn’t be hoarded or kept from people.”
• “Dear Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, I am [redacted], [redacted’s] granddaughter, please hear my plea to keep my freedom to read. Protect the intellectual sovereignty of thoughts, opinions, and agency to create and share. I have experienced the byproduct of my peers not reading books with stories about my people or the experiences of LGBTQ+ people. They gave me hatred and hurt me with words and slurs. The love and empathy that stories plant in us are seeds. Please help prevent the spread of this hatred to future students. Protect me. Protect my children.”
• “Dear Governor, The freedom to read is very important to me and my school. I feel that banning and restricting books can hold back some students. Many people need books to truly understand themselves and others. I hope you understand why I would love to have the freedom to read what I want and why others need to too.”
• “As a queer Native American, I want to protect these books because not only do I love reading, but I also love representation! Just knowing that books including queer characters are banned silences those groups. No one should be silenced for what they stand for.”
• “Dear Governor Lujan Grisham, New Mexico is such a beautiful, colorful, diverse state. One full of stories. To ban books which provide accurate, truthful, meaningful history is to dim the bright minds of New Mexico’s children. Every kid deserves the right to read ANY book, and every book. Every book with thoughtful words deserves to be available to a wide, WIDE audience. An audience with curious minds. To censor is to hide. To censor a book, to silence a voice, WILL lead to the loss of priceless history. A children’s book is often the representation children are first exposed to. To read, to be proud, to be very knowledgeable, is worth every single effort. Young people are New Mexico’s future.”
• “Dear Governor, I hope this postcard finds you well. You know what really gets to me is that I feel that it is common sense for me to walk into a library and read what I want to read. A book ban is like taking away my education. With today’s technology I think it is fascinating that people still want to read. I love to read. Also as a Native American student our voices are pushed aside, but I count on you to bring my voice higher, let us know that we are heard. We need books. We love books. Please don’t take what we love: Empowerment through books.”
• “Dear Governor, The upcoming/current questioning of banning books reminds me of a certain experience when I was younger. I was told that there are “certain topics” I shouldn’t be reading; this was due to a book I was reading about immigration. I believe that anyone has the right to read whatever they want to because being educated on multiple sides brings a whole perspective. “
• “The reason why reading should be free to everyone—all subjects—is that it makes us understand. Books teach us about other people, they connect us, they make us think. With books, we can learn about other cultures and problems. Without books, we can become uninformed and biased. Books teach us to be better people.”

You can read more of these outstanding student letters and get engaged on the ground with efforts to pass this bill here.

Pennsylvania, like its peers here, has attempted to pass a Freedom to Read previously. It’s back on, thanks to State Senator Amanda Cappelletti, who proposed the prior bill.

Senate Bill 1103 mirrors much of Illinois’s Freedom to Read bill. Public schools cannot ban “voluntary inquiry material” due to reasons related to partisanship, race, gender, or sexuality. This is both in the classroom and the school libraries. State funding for public schools would be tied to facilities having, or adopting, the Library Bill of Rights in their policies. The bill also notes that funding for an institution cannot be harmed locally due to the adoption of an anti-censorship collection policy.

S.B. 1103 was formally introduced in December, and it is now before the Senate Education Committee.

“This is not a partisan issue. Polling conducted by bipartisan research firms has shown that voters across the political spectrum oppose book bans and have confidence in libraries to make good decisions about their collections,” said Cappelletti in her announcement of the forthcoming legislative proposal.

Several authors and literary advocates are working on the ground in Pennsylvania to ensure the state enshrines the right to read. If you’re in Pennsylvania, you can find out more and get involved through the Education Law Center and PA WINS.

The Virginia Bill

Legislators in Virginia have also proposed a version of a freedom to read bill. This comes two years after Virginia’s legislature passed a light-weight right to read bill; that bill would have continued to allow parental notification about use of “sexually explicit” books or resources in schools (and allow individual opt-outs), while also bluntly stating school boards cannot ban books. That 2024 bill was ultimately vetoed by the governor, who spent significant time and money in his electoral campaign rallying against “inappropriate” books in schools.

The 2026 session has brought a new anti-book ban bill to the Virginia floor, though. House Bill 236 would require public and school libraries to implement policies for their collections to combat censorship. It would also involve creating model policies to make such efforts possible, requiring local policies to align with those models. Such policies would also need to include who would be involved and how book challenges would proceed.

The Virginia Library Association (VLA) and the Virginia Public Library Directors (VPLD) Association have opposed this bill. Their reasons are outlined in full here: this would be cumbersome to implement and how it would actually steal local control from libraries. Local control has, of course, been the language book banners have used to justify their interest in “curating” local collections of books they disagree with, and local control is also exactly what those groups have been advocating against at the legislative level–see Texas and Florida.

From the VLA and VPLD statement:

Although presented as anti-censorship legislation, many library leaders believe HB 236 could instead be used to pressure or constrain libraries. In a polarized climate, the bill’s rigidity and enforcement mechanisms create opportunities for misuse and unintended consequences.

While introduced with constructive aims, HB 236 was drafted without sufficient input from the library professionals who manage collections, develop policies, and serve communities on a daily basis.

The professional organizations note their support for a freedom to read bill and they go on to cite Illinois, Rhode Island, and Maryland as examples of what such a bill could look like.

This one, alas, isn’t it. Engagement from constituents and feedback from library workers in the state directed at legislators, though, could help shape this bill into something stronger–or derail it now in favor of something more robust and protective of libraries and the First Amendment in the future.

If you’re in these states, now is the time to get engaged. If you’re in one of the aforementioned states with concerning legislation, now is the time to get involved. Write those letters, make those phone calls, and show up in person where or how you are able.

Democracy depends upon us. No one else is going to save us, so we must do it ourselves. The past five years have been but a preview of what’s to come for libraries and unhindered access to a diverse array of books.

Book Censorship News: February 6, 2026

• Jim Obergefell, plaintiff in the Supreme Court marriage equality case, has penned an incredible editorial about the ways and means by which book censorship in libraries is cruel. He’s specifically addressing Ohio’s continued fight over whether or not libraries need to hide LGBTQ+ books from the sight lines of minors.
• “An Idaho law restricting books deemed “harmful” to minors buckled under Ninth Circuit review, with the appeals court on Thursday instructing a lower court to reconsider blocking at least a portion of the law.” This is great news and it relates to portions of Idaho law banning use of books the state deems “harmful to minors” in schools.
• The director of the Rutherford County Public Library system in Tennessee filed several ethics complaints against the library board chair. The county ethics commission chair doesn’t want to hear them.
• The director has filed additional complaints against another member of the board.
• While we’re in Rutherford, out these photos of the massive showing of freedom to read supporters at this week’s board meeting, where the board was discussing where to put thousands of books they pulled on the request of the Secretary of State. As of writing, the 3,000 books will remain on shelves.
• Tennessee legislators want to pass a bill allowing anyone in a county to challenge books in their public library. This isn’t a huge issue, given that challenging books is a First Amendment right. The problem is that we know in Tennessee, the government has already overstepped their authority in demanding removal of books from public library shelves. This will make it worse.
• At least two book banning bills are on deck in the Florida legislature. Remember that Florida is the blueprint by which other book banners operate nationwide.
• How Do You Make a Baby? is making some parents in Sooke, British Columbia, Canada, mad because it’s in the children’s section of the public library.
• Cache Valley Unitarian Universalists (UT) are collecting banned books to make them accessible to young people throughout their community via a church library.
• “Congresswoman Nancy Mace (SC-01) sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services demanding an immediate pause to all federal funding for Charleston County Public Library (CCPL) after graphic sexual materials were found accessible to children.” That’s not how the IMLS works, but you know it’s how the IMLS will work under the current regime.
• South Carolina’s State Attorney General sent a letter to Charleston County Public Library telling them they cannot have inappropriate material in their collection. The library’s already certified with the state that they don’t.
• Texas A&M University has killed their women’s and gender studies program over DEI laws in the state. Remember: the people who are paying to take these classes are legal adults. This isn’t and never was about protecting the kids.
• Texas Tech struggles with new rules that changed what students learn about race, gender, and sexuality. Again: these are grown adults (SOME may be 17, but nearly everyone else at a university would be an adult).
• That Bible-infused curriculum Texas created and offered an incentive to schools for taking up? It’s packed with factual errors.
• The Des Moines Pride Center (IA) has opened up a new library, packed to the gills with LGBTQ+ literature. This is rad.
• “A request by a resident to fly the pride flag in front of the city library became a heated debate at the Cloverdale City Council [CA] Wednesday, Jan. 28. Rather than allow just the pride flag at the library, the city council will now allow all “commemorative flags” to fly in front of the library, pending the structural soundness of the flagpole.” Another rad thing.
• No one is surprised to learn that the bulk of books being removed in Alberta, Canada, on account of their government demands, feature LGBTQ+ people.
• Baldwin County, Alabama, is once again providing Fairhope Public Library with courier service. This should never have ended, but it’s good news that it is back.
• The U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education will hold a hearing titled “Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor” next Tuesday. You can tune in virtually here. This isn’t a good thing–this is going to be a hearing about leveraging the Supreme Court’s pro-religious freedom decision to further harm inclusive public education.
• Members of the Mat-Su Borough (AK) are taking their battle over books from the schools to the public library, attempting to demand that the public library not have any books they deem inappropriate. Case cited to justify this? Little v. Llano County.
• An update to the above: public pushback led to this ordinence’s withdrawl.
• Georgia legislators are trying to pass a bill to remove exemptions from library workers if they provide minors with “harmful materials.” It’s a librarian criminalization bill. Again. (More on librarian criminalization bills).
• Hillsborough School District (NJ) has some board members mad that the district passed new policy to protect the library and its collections from censorship–something mandated by the state’s new freedom to read law.
• The Iowa House has advanced a bill that would make it illegal for public schools and public libraries to develop partnerships. This includes banning book mobiles from public schools if students can access materials there. For real. This is the level of censorship going on, and it’s really hard to convey to most people that yes, it is this bad.
• Iowa’s House also advanced further restrictions on sexuality and gender education and materials in public schools.
• I’ve not yet watched it, but American Pastoral is a documentary that should be on anti-censorship radars. It’s about the election of far-right extremists to a Pennsylvania school board and about how book bans became a litmus test for other cruel policies.
• Speaking of documentaries, The Librarians begins streaming on PBS on February 9.
• An Oklahoma state representative is trying to pass a bill “clarifying” the kinds of sexual content which would be banned in Oklahoma public schools. He could not answer a question about where or how his bill would apply to such passages in the Bible.