“The Library is One of the Best Libertarian Arguments for Limited Government”

Censorship is a national weathervane, indicating an unhealthy society where freedom of thought and expression are under attack, often because of prejudice against those whose appearance, identity, or beliefs are counter to the majority. Libraries are on the front lines in that battle.

The American Library Association reports that 2025 was the worst year for book bans, with 713 attempts to censor library materials. Most of the targets, including the contemporary classic, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, and Malinda Lo’s National Book Award winner, The Last Night at the Telegraph Club, feature characters and plotlines related to queer sexuality. Only three percent of book ban requests began with parents. Most originated with political pressure groups or even elected officials.

I recently spoke with John Chrastka, the executive director of EveryLibrary, about public libraries, book bans, and how libraries represent the aspirations of democracy. EveryLibrary, a non-profit, advocates for library funding, pro-library legislation at the local and state levels, and freedom in the face of book-ban campaigns.

DM: What is the state of public libraries, and what is the state of the effort to maintain freedom of choice?

JC: There are about 17,500 public libraries and about 9,500 administrative units, meaning headquarters buildings and legal jurisdictions. The vast majority are not experiencing book ban challenges and are in a position where the conversation with taxpayers is about how tax dollars serve communities, how we lower barriers to get people the reading material that they want, either for enjoyment or skills building, along with the programming that they want, whether it is something fun (like a magician for kids) or something serious (like how to write a resume). Last year, 94 percent of ballot measures for funding libraries passed. Most people are comfortable with paying taxes to fund libraries because they understand the impact. But we have a small group of libraries that have to fight for the rule of law. The rule of law issue affects censorship and readers’ civil rights because so many book-ban campaigns are about erasure or discrimination against particular types of books about particular types of people. So, we have a lopsided news cycle. Most headlines should say, “Americans love libraries. They are investing in them and using them heavily,” but some libraries fight valiantly to ensure a right to read.

DM: Wonderful to hear some good news for a change. How do you square America’s love for libraries with the rancor surrounding funding for public goods and services?

JC: That is an age-old question in our republic. The thing that comes to mind immediately is the difference between how Americans think of their own public schools and how they think about public education, overall. Look at the work that Phi Beta Kappa has done since the 1950s. They ask people to score their local school. They usually give it a ‘B’ or ‘B+’. When they ask them to grade public education in the U.S., they usually give a ‘C- ‘ or ‘D+.’ The local congressman or congresswoman tends to get reelected until they retire. Approval ratings for Congress are in the 20s or teens. We have a perception of how things are nationally versus locally. It is the same with libraries. Locally, it is a beloved institution. Nationally, the story is about a problem that needs to be addressed regarding censorship. People in good faith are not paying close attention and don’t want to see anything go badly. So, they accept the book banners’ word for it, even though they know there is no problem locally. The books removed by these weaponized and politicized campaigns are not being removed for sincere-belief reasons, but because they are part of larger political campaigns.

DM: Why should Americans pay closer attention to the services that the library provides, and the need to protect those services?

JC: The library is one of the best libertarian arguments for limited government. You might not have expected that answer, but it is. They are a small part of the local budget and a minimal part of the federal budget, yet they create opportunities to read and develop skills. If a child needs access to 1,000 books to learn to read, the library is the place that can provide them. As a nation, we want to see an informed and prosperous citizenry. The library helps us reach that goal with very little taxpayer money. It is the best example of the libertarian ideal. Yet, it is also progressive because people who are not part of the majority get to see themselves honored and reflected on the shelves. It is also conservative, because it preserves communal memory and identity. It is also an embodiment of the Tenth Amendment because states have extraordinary discretion to run the library.

DM: Moving on to the bad news, you’ve said that the book ban campaigns don’t operate in good faith and are politicized. To the average person who thinks book-ban efforts are driven by concerned parents, what is going on?

JC: The First Amendment has five freedoms. One of them is the right to petition the government for various grievances. I have a right to petition the government about a book in the library that I think is a problem. That’s what a book-ban campaign is in the ideal sense. It is as simple as, “I have a problem with this taxpayer-funded thing. So, let’s have a debate about it.” That’s unimpeachable. It’s how government should function. The problem is a situation like in Clay County, Florida, where one person was responsible for 854 book challenges and proudly talks about his role as a disruptor. He’s not even a parent. The Washington Post reported on all book ban challenges in 2023 and found that 11 people were responsible for 62 percent of the requests. This is either a very small group of sincere people who have drunk the Kool-Aid about how books can be dangerous—books, by the way, that have been produced by mainstream publishers, books that have been vetted by lawyers at those publishing companies, books that professional librarians have acquired—or it is part of a social and political movement. There are groups like Mothers [sic] for Liberty and Purple Parents in Indiana, and the governor of Louisiana, who, when running, told supporters, “I want you to report the pornography at your local library to my campaign.”

DM: What’s their agenda?

JC: The agenda around book bans, aside from sincerely held belief, which again, is unimpeachable, is going from different vectors. One is anti-public education or anti-public sector. The book-banning allegation is intended to discredit the institution and its workforce. To say that there is pornography in the libraries and schools is to say that the librarians and teachers are pornographers. In states where there is a charter school movement, we see tremendous attacks with this pornography allegation. It happened in Texas. It was concurrent with the move toward charter school vouchers. It happened in Florida. It is also part of the discriminatory wave out there. It’s anti-gay, anti-trans, and anti-Black. Then there is an interesting corollary to efforts to oppose sex education.

DM: The people of sincere conviction, operating without political organization, are a tiny minority, but real. How do you believe that process should play out?

JC: Two ways. One is a transparent, consultative process about why the book was brought into the library in the first place, how it is relevant to the library’s mission, and how it is relevant to the people for whom it is intended. If it doesn’t pass the tests for harm or obscenity, it should be removed. Sometimes that good-faith approach is instructive. The other option: The person can go to the district attorney’s office. If the book really is obscene, then let’s take it to where it belongs, which is the DA and the courts.

DM: Another controversial aspect: events that take place at libraries, particularly drag queen story hours. What is your position?

JC: The use of the library has two different components. One is programs and events put on by residents and local organizations that use the library as a public forum. They either have space for free or rent space. So, anything short of illegal activity, which includes religious proselytization, raising funds for political candidates, and obscene activities, is part of the public forum. It is a place in the community for citizens’ use. There is nothing illegal about a drag queen story time. It might make people uncomfortable, but it isn’t illegal. Then, there are events put on by the library itself. In some communities, drag queen events are common. In other places, most people have never met a drag queen. Either way, there’s nothing illegal about it. So, if there is a program at the local library that involves reptiles, and Indiana Jones doesn’t like snakes, we shouldn’t stop doing it just because Indiana Jones doesn’t like snakes.

DM: What is EveryLibrary doing to protect libraries against censorship and to protect library funding?

JC: Two ways: One is our FightfortheFirst.org platform. It is for citizens troubled by censorship and discrimination campaigns to organize and fight for the rule of law. We know that, across the 172 local campaigns we’ve helped support in the last few years, we can help put books back on the shelf when citizens are engaged. The other way that we work is to inoculate against them. Most people who serve on a library or school board are not lawyers. They are average citizens working hard to ensure that taxpayers are properly represented and that the laws are implemented. So, we train, coach, guide, and support library leadership, especially citizen-leaders on the board. We want to make sure that the republic is functional in that it follows the law. The allegation that a book is obscene or criminal is very serious. So, we have to make sure that the law is properly understood and applied, because otherwise, it makes people scared, understandably so. Take the allegation seriously, but don’t let a special interest group with a political agenda to defund the library or the school pull the wool over your eyes.

DM: Just so people understand, when there is a library book that is the target of a book ban effort, such as a novel with a transgender protagonist, it is there because of local decision-making. There isn’t any special interest group placing the book on the shelf.

JC: No, absolutely not. A book gets on the shelf because it is a bestseller, because people want to read it. But there are also books relevant to a minority population. That’s one reason why we have 15-20 versions of The Holy Bible on the shelf. You have the King James readers, you have the New American Standard readers, you have people who want to read the Apocrypha…I could keep going. It is all there because it is relevant to the local faith community and local people with inquiries. It is a great example of democracy according to the “live and let live” Hobbesian philosophy. You don’t find a book interesting, but maybe I do. That should be enough in America.

DM: With the horror that we see every day, why should Americans care about the library? Does the library represent something larger than the charming building on the corner?

JC: For those who care about the way that government is structured, and the way our value system is expressed through public policy and budgets, one of the most local expressions of the Constitution is the public library. It’s freedom of speech.  It’s the right to petition. It’s the right to assemble. Libraries are not mentioned in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says that the states can organize. So, it comes down to how we want to govern ourselves. How do we express the American ideal? That’s why anyone who is a policy wonk should pay attention to libraries. If we can get the American experiment right with something as prosaic as no-fear, no-favor access to a taxpayer-funded institution like the public library, then maybe we can get the rest of America right.

The post “The Library is One of the Best Libertarian Arguments for Limited Government” appeared first on Washington Monthly.