What is Soft Censorship?
By now, most of us are familiar with the most obvious forms of censorship: a book ban, a removal from shelves, or restricted access to certain materials. But censorship doesn’t always announce itself so clearly. Sometimes it operates quietly, through subtle decisions that restrict access to ideas. This is known as soft censorship, and despite its quieter nature, it is still censorship—and it deserves the same level of concern and opposition.
​
Soft censorship, sometimes called quiet censorship or self-censorship, occurs when books or information are never added, are hidden, or are quietly removed to avoid controversy or criticism. Unlike formal bans, these actions often happen behind the scenes. For example, librarians or institutions may avoid selecting certain books because they fear community backlash, political pressure, or complaints about controversial topics. This means the public never even knows what they are missing.
​
One of the most troubling aspects of soft censorship is that it is often driven by implicit bias—unconscious beliefs that influence decisions without people realizing it. These biases can lead decision-makers to exclude materials that reflect marginalized communities or viewpoints. When this happens, entire groups of people lose access to stories and information that reflect their lives and experiences, and people who might grow in empathy and understanding by learning about cultures different from their own lose the opportunity to do so. Soft censorship can therefore reinforce inequality and limit understanding, exactly the opposite of the purpose behind free and open libraries.
​
Some might argue that avoiding controversy is simply being cautious or neutral in the face of personal attacks on library staff. But neutrality itself often enables censorship. Choosing not to include a book because it might offend someone is still a decision to restrict access, and while the short-term benefits may seem worthwhile, we have seen all too often here in Louisiana that appeasing those who advocate for book bans never works in the longer run, because the goalposts will always be moved. The result is the same, regardless: the public’s freedom to read and learn is limited.
​
Challenging soft censorship begins with eradicating vague language from laws and collection development policies. Terms like "community standards," and "obscene" have no clear definition, and therefore open the door to subjective interpretation of what might be appropriate for library inclusion.
​
Soft censorship is dangerous precisely because it is less visible. It doesn’t provoke headlines or protests, yet it quietly shapes what people can know. Intellectual freedom and the continuation of public libraries as spaces of inquiry and growth depend not just on preventing outright bans, but also on challenging these quieter forms of suppression. To protect a free society, we must recognize soft censorship for what it is—and stand firmly against it.