What do you think?
Rate this book
On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy
A lively, accessible survey of literary censorship through the ages.
The freedom to read is under attack. There are, today, more efforts to ban books from libraries than ever before. The supposed "dangers" posed by books including The Handmaid's Tale, Gender Queer, Huckleberry Finn, and the works of Dr. Seuss—leading children down a path of sexual deviance, or harming them with racist language or non-inclusive narratives—fuel the puritanical zeal of De Santis Republicans and progressive educators alike. On Book Banning argues that today's culture warriors proceed from a misunderstanding of literature as instrumental to the pursuit of their ideological agendas. In treating libraries as sites of contagion and exposure, censors are warping our children's relationship with literature and teaching them that the solution to opposing viewpoints is cancellation or outright expurgation.
On Book Banning provides a lively, accessible survey of literary censorship through the ages—from the destruction of libraries in ancient Rome, to the Catholic Church's attempts to tamp down religious dissent and scientific innovation, to state-sponsored efforts to suppress LGBTQ literature in the 1980s and beyond. Throughout, Ira Wells demonstrates how today's book bans stem from the ineradicable human impulse toward social control. In a whistle-stop tour of landmark legal cases, literary controversies, and philosophical arguments, we discover that the freedom to read and publish is the aberration in human history, and that censorship and restriction have been the rule. At a moment in which our democratic institutions are buckling under the stress of polarization, On Book Banning is both rallying cry and guide to resistance for those who reject the conflation of art and propaganda, for whom books remain sacred vessels of our shared humanity, and who will always insist upon reading for ourselves.
The freedom to read is under attack. There are, today, more efforts to ban books from libraries than ever before. The supposed "dangers" posed by books including The Handmaid's Tale, Gender Queer, Huckleberry Finn, and the works of Dr. Seuss—leading children down a path of sexual deviance, or harming them with racist language or non-inclusive narratives—fuel the puritanical zeal of De Santis Republicans and progressive educators alike. On Book Banning argues that today's culture warriors proceed from a misunderstanding of literature as instrumental to the pursuit of their ideological agendas. In treating libraries as sites of contagion and exposure, censors are warping our children's relationship with literature and teaching them that the solution to opposing viewpoints is cancellation or outright expurgation.
On Book Banning provides a lively, accessible survey of literary censorship through the ages—from the destruction of libraries in ancient Rome, to the Catholic Church's attempts to tamp down religious dissent and scientific innovation, to state-sponsored efforts to suppress LGBTQ literature in the 1980s and beyond. Throughout, Ira Wells demonstrates how today's book bans stem from the ineradicable human impulse toward social control. In a whistle-stop tour of landmark legal cases, literary controversies, and philosophical arguments, we discover that the freedom to read and publish is the aberration in human history, and that censorship and restriction have been the rule. At a moment in which our democratic institutions are buckling under the stress of polarization, On Book Banning is both rallying cry and guide to resistance for those who reject the conflation of art and propaganda, for whom books remain sacred vessels of our shared humanity, and who will always insist upon reading for ourselves.
184 pages, Paperback
Published June 3, 2025
46 people are currently reading
401 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
April 19, 2025
Well and just to say, I do find it a bit strange that Ira Wells' On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy is listed on Goodreads with a release date of June 2025, when in Canada, On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy has in fact been available since this February. But I guess that June 3, 2025 is probably when On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy will be released in the USA. And yes, I also have to wonder how soon after being available in the United States of America On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy might be facing calls to have the book restricted and banned (as I do think that what Wells has to say in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy will more than likely not sit very well at all with Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis et al and with their supporters, with their acolytes, but also and equally so with cancel culture left wing fanatics and extremists as well).
Now Ira Wells (who is an associate professor at Victoria College at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy is clearly and nicely readably demonstrating that for as long as there have been books, people have wanted to censor, restrict and ban them (and even more so after Johannes Gutenberg's printing press made books mass produced, increasingly affordable and thereby also increased literacy), that from Roman emperors, popes, priests, pastors, monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, temperance evangelists, today's so unaptly and unintentionally ironically named Moms for Liberty and similar special interest groups to of course authoritarian and my way or the highway parents, there has always been a book (and in my opinion also a thought) police and with civic, political and religious groups rather constantly worrying about exposing in particular children and teenagers to potentially harmful ideas, even if and sometimes actually very much because the ideas being textually featured are positive, are promoting inclusion and diversity (and unfortunately even in countries that claim to be democracies but are with regard to books and the freedom to read acting like absolute monarchies and dictatorships, such as for example and in particular the United States of America, where democracy seems have become a dirty word for far far too many).
With Ira Wells also pointing out in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy that today's book banning is not simply and actually mostly centred on parents monitoring their children's reading choices (which is of course totally acceptable even though I personally do always hope and pray that children and especially so teenagers read what they want and in total rebellion, in open defiance of their parents if necessary) and what is being used by teachers in classrooms (which is and can be problematic and undemocratic) but also means school and public library audits to cull older works that harbour or supposedly harbour outdated and offensive philosophies (so yes, left-wing cancel culture) as well as bien sûr right wing, puritanical, racist, homophobic and transphobic parents and special interest groups like that vile and despicable MFL demanding LGBTQ+ books and works promoting ethnic diversity, gender equity, women's rights, evolution (and so on and so on) be permanently removed and banned not just from classrooms but also from both school and even public libraries, publishers pulling out of deals with authors who face cancel culture threats and also rare (but increasing) complaints regarding what can be bought at bookstores and book fairs and even what types of books can be present in people's homes and read privately. And while Ira Wells does note that not all of these phenomena constitute actual book banning per se, regarding everything Wells is describing in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy (both from the past and equally and perhaps even more so now), yes, this is all censorship and that it is indeed highly and hugely problematic how often, how regularly books and authors are called upon to justify their very existence through demonstrations of their "moral value" (and that these so-called values and demands are often if not even generally superimposed from above by politicians, lawmakers, religious groups etc. etc. and that those not in agreement, that in particular publicly dissenting authors, teachers, librarians, book store owners and pretty much anyone openly and loudly critical of book bans and censorship risk being ignored, shamed, ridiculed, facing death threats, but are also increasingly getting fired, arrested and the like).
Finally Ira Wells actually and appreciatively wants with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy a middle ground, where we actually do recognise that not all books will ever be the right, will ever be the correct fit for everyone. So yes, Wells does understand that notions of appropriateness, obscenity, offensiveness, blasphemy etc. change over time, are often also personal, can be ethnically, religiously based etc. (and are thus of course neither stagnant nor cast in stone as well) and that literature therefore cannot and should not be separated from the social worlds in which it is written and read. However, Ira Wells also with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy points out that book banning, that literary censorship thrive in cultures (and in countries like Adolf Hitler's Germany, Josef Stalin and Vladimir Putin's Russia and Donald Trump's United States of America) where art and literature are not (or are no longer) analysed for their inevitable political, religious and moral assumptions but are sadly totally and utterly reduced to them and where people with regard to books and literature also increasingly fail to articulate and understand why reading and literacy even matter.
And in fact On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy is also and therefore not just about censorship, literature and free speech but rather and maybe even primarily so about the importance of especially public libraries and that Ira Wells very distinctly and forcefully points out in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy that there really should be NO book banning or censorship of ANY KIND in and of public libraries, that Wells (and I as well) want and need a world where a well-informed public can access and judge books on their own and without the government, without special interest groups, without lawmakers, churches, religions and insufferable busybodies (both right and left wing) interfering (a more than reasonable desire and demand of course, but sadly the actual state of affairs in the United States of America and indeed often elsewhere as well kind of makes this all a pipe dream and rather wishful thinking). Excellent, eye-opening, sensible and that for me On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy therefore totally and completely rates as solidly and gloriously five stars (and is also very highly recommended and definitely a must read for anyone who is against censorship and who believes in the freedom to read).
Now Ira Wells (who is an associate professor at Victoria College at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada) with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy is clearly and nicely readably demonstrating that for as long as there have been books, people have wanted to censor, restrict and ban them (and even more so after Johannes Gutenberg's printing press made books mass produced, increasingly affordable and thereby also increased literacy), that from Roman emperors, popes, priests, pastors, monarchs, presidents, prime ministers, temperance evangelists, today's so unaptly and unintentionally ironically named Moms for Liberty and similar special interest groups to of course authoritarian and my way or the highway parents, there has always been a book (and in my opinion also a thought) police and with civic, political and religious groups rather constantly worrying about exposing in particular children and teenagers to potentially harmful ideas, even if and sometimes actually very much because the ideas being textually featured are positive, are promoting inclusion and diversity (and unfortunately even in countries that claim to be democracies but are with regard to books and the freedom to read acting like absolute monarchies and dictatorships, such as for example and in particular the United States of America, where democracy seems have become a dirty word for far far too many).
With Ira Wells also pointing out in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy that today's book banning is not simply and actually mostly centred on parents monitoring their children's reading choices (which is of course totally acceptable even though I personally do always hope and pray that children and especially so teenagers read what they want and in total rebellion, in open defiance of their parents if necessary) and what is being used by teachers in classrooms (which is and can be problematic and undemocratic) but also means school and public library audits to cull older works that harbour or supposedly harbour outdated and offensive philosophies (so yes, left-wing cancel culture) as well as bien sûr right wing, puritanical, racist, homophobic and transphobic parents and special interest groups like that vile and despicable MFL demanding LGBTQ+ books and works promoting ethnic diversity, gender equity, women's rights, evolution (and so on and so on) be permanently removed and banned not just from classrooms but also from both school and even public libraries, publishers pulling out of deals with authors who face cancel culture threats and also rare (but increasing) complaints regarding what can be bought at bookstores and book fairs and even what types of books can be present in people's homes and read privately. And while Ira Wells does note that not all of these phenomena constitute actual book banning per se, regarding everything Wells is describing in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy (both from the past and equally and perhaps even more so now), yes, this is all censorship and that it is indeed highly and hugely problematic how often, how regularly books and authors are called upon to justify their very existence through demonstrations of their "moral value" (and that these so-called values and demands are often if not even generally superimposed from above by politicians, lawmakers, religious groups etc. etc. and that those not in agreement, that in particular publicly dissenting authors, teachers, librarians, book store owners and pretty much anyone openly and loudly critical of book bans and censorship risk being ignored, shamed, ridiculed, facing death threats, but are also increasingly getting fired, arrested and the like).
Finally Ira Wells actually and appreciatively wants with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy a middle ground, where we actually do recognise that not all books will ever be the right, will ever be the correct fit for everyone. So yes, Wells does understand that notions of appropriateness, obscenity, offensiveness, blasphemy etc. change over time, are often also personal, can be ethnically, religiously based etc. (and are thus of course neither stagnant nor cast in stone as well) and that literature therefore cannot and should not be separated from the social worlds in which it is written and read. However, Ira Wells also with On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy points out that book banning, that literary censorship thrive in cultures (and in countries like Adolf Hitler's Germany, Josef Stalin and Vladimir Putin's Russia and Donald Trump's United States of America) where art and literature are not (or are no longer) analysed for their inevitable political, religious and moral assumptions but are sadly totally and utterly reduced to them and where people with regard to books and literature also increasingly fail to articulate and understand why reading and literacy even matter.
And in fact On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy is also and therefore not just about censorship, literature and free speech but rather and maybe even primarily so about the importance of especially public libraries and that Ira Wells very distinctly and forcefully points out in On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy that there really should be NO book banning or censorship of ANY KIND in and of public libraries, that Wells (and I as well) want and need a world where a well-informed public can access and judge books on their own and without the government, without special interest groups, without lawmakers, churches, religions and insufferable busybodies (both right and left wing) interfering (a more than reasonable desire and demand of course, but sadly the actual state of affairs in the United States of America and indeed often elsewhere as well kind of makes this all a pipe dream and rather wishful thinking). Excellent, eye-opening, sensible and that for me On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy therefore totally and completely rates as solidly and gloriously five stars (and is also very highly recommended and definitely a must read for anyone who is against censorship and who believes in the freedom to read).
March 5, 2025
"Literature isn't reducible - not to summaries or quotations, or to any of these pleasures or values or states of being. And reducing literature is precisely what censorship does. With its ideological checklists or puritanical frameworks, it reduces literature to a shrunken, misshapen parody of itself. A novel teeming with voices and perspectives becomes a single 'message', or a wicked idea, a naughty image, or even a single, abominable word.'
On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy by Ira Wells is a thoughtful look at book banning, censoring, 'weeding' by right wing abolitionists and even by left leaning idealists. It's very depressing at times but it's so well-written and covers the area in detail, from the history of censorship and book banning and library burning to those people who write about the need to allow the distribution and circulation of diverse ideas.
The book starts with a historical look at book banning / censorship. The Greeks burned books of dissident voices. Julius Caesar liked criticism, permitting both oral and written criticism and responding to it. He published the proceedings of senate meetings, believing in transparency. But under Augustus, Rome's first emperor, things changed. He only permitted favourable commentaries. Anyone who voiced dissent was punished. They had all of their work destroyed, this destroying, often resulting in suicide or death to the victim. The Romans had another way of censoring dissenters, that being basically making the person a 'non-person'. Any record of their existence was wiped out. They didn't exist. (Reminds me of George Orwell's 1984). The Roman Catholic Church published a regular list of publications that were to be censored. Wells talks about the Comstock Act which we've been hearing more and more about the past years. Comstock was a relentless crusader for public morals and lobbied to have laws passed to prevent 'obscenity' from being sent through the mails. (the definition of what obscenity was being somewhat undefined)
At the other end, you've got Benjamin Franklin who established one of the first lending libraries in the US, the Library Company of Philadelphia; 30% history, 20% literature, 20% science, 10% philosophy, religion and miscellaneous. By 1800, there were 40+ lending libraries in the US. In Franklin's opinion, 'the libraries have improved the general conversation of the Americans, made the common tradesman and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries...' Andrew Carnegie funded over 2500 free public libraries over the world.
I don't want to quote the whole book here, suffice it to say it's a great discussion of libraries and the pressures they are under. He highlights two different types of 'banning'. In Florida, groups like Moms for Liberty have lists of LGBTQ+, racial books, etc that they feel should be removed from libraries, and get the support of the State government. They want to remove books, to white wash libraries to basically ensure their supremacy, to denigrate the 'other'. From the other perspective, the Peel School board has a policy of removing books that have been published in excess of 15 years ago. While trying to remain all inclusive, they feel that many classics and earlier books use terminology that makes their communities feel denigrated. So to that end, books like Anne Frank's diary, books by Maya Angelou don't make it to their shelves because they were published over 15 years ago. Instead of using these books to discuss and educate, they are 'weeded out'.
It's an ongoing battle between these forces. Wells talks about freedom of speech, which is the freedom to discuss your ideas, but not necessarily to shout them out just to hear your own voice. He mentions a discussion on 'freedom to read' which was quite interesting. I readily admit that I sometimes got a bit lost in the language but for the most part, the book was informative and very interesting and thought-provoking. I'm probably giving the story short shrift with my review, it's definitely worth reading.
Teachers and librarians need support and public funding, the politicians need to have the courage to defend reading, diversity, discussion of uncomfortable topics and to fight back at those from either side who want to hide the past, and to show the whole past, in all its grittiness and also to encourage all reading and proper discussion. The way things are currently, I'm not hopeful but it's worth fighting for. (4.5 stars)
On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy by Ira Wells is a thoughtful look at book banning, censoring, 'weeding' by right wing abolitionists and even by left leaning idealists. It's very depressing at times but it's so well-written and covers the area in detail, from the history of censorship and book banning and library burning to those people who write about the need to allow the distribution and circulation of diverse ideas.
The book starts with a historical look at book banning / censorship. The Greeks burned books of dissident voices. Julius Caesar liked criticism, permitting both oral and written criticism and responding to it. He published the proceedings of senate meetings, believing in transparency. But under Augustus, Rome's first emperor, things changed. He only permitted favourable commentaries. Anyone who voiced dissent was punished. They had all of their work destroyed, this destroying, often resulting in suicide or death to the victim. The Romans had another way of censoring dissenters, that being basically making the person a 'non-person'. Any record of their existence was wiped out. They didn't exist. (Reminds me of George Orwell's 1984). The Roman Catholic Church published a regular list of publications that were to be censored. Wells talks about the Comstock Act which we've been hearing more and more about the past years. Comstock was a relentless crusader for public morals and lobbied to have laws passed to prevent 'obscenity' from being sent through the mails. (the definition of what obscenity was being somewhat undefined)
At the other end, you've got Benjamin Franklin who established one of the first lending libraries in the US, the Library Company of Philadelphia; 30% history, 20% literature, 20% science, 10% philosophy, religion and miscellaneous. By 1800, there were 40+ lending libraries in the US. In Franklin's opinion, 'the libraries have improved the general conversation of the Americans, made the common tradesman and farmers as intelligent as most gentlemen from other countries...' Andrew Carnegie funded over 2500 free public libraries over the world.
I don't want to quote the whole book here, suffice it to say it's a great discussion of libraries and the pressures they are under. He highlights two different types of 'banning'. In Florida, groups like Moms for Liberty have lists of LGBTQ+, racial books, etc that they feel should be removed from libraries, and get the support of the State government. They want to remove books, to white wash libraries to basically ensure their supremacy, to denigrate the 'other'. From the other perspective, the Peel School board has a policy of removing books that have been published in excess of 15 years ago. While trying to remain all inclusive, they feel that many classics and earlier books use terminology that makes their communities feel denigrated. So to that end, books like Anne Frank's diary, books by Maya Angelou don't make it to their shelves because they were published over 15 years ago. Instead of using these books to discuss and educate, they are 'weeded out'.
It's an ongoing battle between these forces. Wells talks about freedom of speech, which is the freedom to discuss your ideas, but not necessarily to shout them out just to hear your own voice. He mentions a discussion on 'freedom to read' which was quite interesting. I readily admit that I sometimes got a bit lost in the language but for the most part, the book was informative and very interesting and thought-provoking. I'm probably giving the story short shrift with my review, it's definitely worth reading.
Teachers and librarians need support and public funding, the politicians need to have the courage to defend reading, diversity, discussion of uncomfortable topics and to fight back at those from either side who want to hide the past, and to show the whole past, in all its grittiness and also to encourage all reading and proper discussion. The way things are currently, I'm not hopeful but it's worth fighting for. (4.5 stars)
April 1, 2025
5+ stars
A must-read.
Having personally gone through some of the issues raised in this book, I appreciate the context and arguments that Ira Wells employs to frame an understanding of what exactly is going on. From looking at book bans in school libraries on both sides of the political spectrum to “save the children” from harm, to a historical overview of censorship in the West, Wells examines the desire to dominate one point of view over another:
“At its core, censorship is the primal expression of the desire to obliterate the Other, who displeases us by continuing to exist” (89).
But this book is so much more than an examination of the impulse to the cancel the voices of others. It contextualizes the arguments through historical, philosophical and cultural criticism. Ultimately, Wells defines the importance of literature, identifies the fictions we live by and calls us to recognize and defend the core fundamental values we want to live by:
[B]ecause strong intellectual critique allows us to rethink our own beliefs from the ground up; because the prohibition of counter-arguments would reduce our beliefs to “dead dogma”; because we are not infallible, and ideas we are convinced are wrong could contain aspects of truth; because citizens must have the right to choose, and a forced choice is no choice at all. In other words, we are left with a pile of arguments in support of a principle that…doesn’t exist” (146).
“We defend free speech not to hear the sounds of our own voices, but for the necessity of hearing the voices of others” (167).
A must-read.
Having personally gone through some of the issues raised in this book, I appreciate the context and arguments that Ira Wells employs to frame an understanding of what exactly is going on. From looking at book bans in school libraries on both sides of the political spectrum to “save the children” from harm, to a historical overview of censorship in the West, Wells examines the desire to dominate one point of view over another:
“At its core, censorship is the primal expression of the desire to obliterate the Other, who displeases us by continuing to exist” (89).
But this book is so much more than an examination of the impulse to the cancel the voices of others. It contextualizes the arguments through historical, philosophical and cultural criticism. Ultimately, Wells defines the importance of literature, identifies the fictions we live by and calls us to recognize and defend the core fundamental values we want to live by:
[B]ecause strong intellectual critique allows us to rethink our own beliefs from the ground up; because the prohibition of counter-arguments would reduce our beliefs to “dead dogma”; because we are not infallible, and ideas we are convinced are wrong could contain aspects of truth; because citizens must have the right to choose, and a forced choice is no choice at all. In other words, we are left with a pile of arguments in support of a principle that…doesn’t exist” (146).
“We defend free speech not to hear the sounds of our own voices, but for the necessity of hearing the voices of others” (167).
February 17, 2025
Brilliant. Exactly the kind of intelligent, nuanced examination of book banning we need. I appreciated the inclusion of Canadian examples and the history of censorship. It would have been a quick read, but there were so many challenging and interesting ideas in here I often had to set it aside to think and debate with myself. Highly recommended.
July 6, 2025
ok so yeah an interesting premise, boo censorship, yay intellectual freedom etc. however. this guy doesn’t understand how deselection in libraries work, relies heavily on an example of a school board deselecting all pre-2008 materials - an example which has been identified as related to a misunderstanding of deselection criteria/lack of clarity in board to teacher librarian communications, frames anti-queer/anti-CRT censorship as comparable to equity based collection development (that includes weeding, as all collection development does), and kind of implies that conservative censorship is american and progressive censorship is canadian? wasn’t a big fan I fear.
March 17, 2025
A concise and informative account of the history and current state of censorship and book banning in North America. I feel like I came out of reading this book with a better understanding of censorship, and a want to continue learning more on the topic. Wells' writing was easy to follow and makes reference to recent developments in both the U.S. and Canada.
June 7, 2025
“The fate of Roe v Wade serves as a reminder that legal freedoms remain fragile; the return of censorship committees, postal searches, and prosecutions remains a live possibility…those in favour of such a regime can find inspiration not only in our own recent history, but also in the systems of censorship currently thriving in authoritarian regimes around the world”
“This is what makes book banning so deeply offensive: It represents an attack on your intellectual autonomy, your right to determine the future of your own mind. It would prevent you from becoming the person you want to be.”
“”More speech” is [alleged to be] liberal doublespeak which would excuse the continued existence of harmful representations - an apology for systemic racism, as well as an example of it. Or, as the PDSB manual puts it: “we cannot layer new inclusive and exciting resources alongside racist, oppressive and colonial resources!””
—
An excellent and timely book.
A lot of the potted history of censorship and free speech theorizing over the last 5 centuries won’t be new to anyone with even passing interest in the subject. Wells himself foreshadows this with his opening Voltaire quote - his book is meant more as a “pamphlet” than a groundbreaking work of scholarship. Many of the arguments will be familiar to anyone who took college courses in this area, or who has read recent publications on the subject - notably Strossen’s Hate and Garton Ash’s Free Speech.
But Well’s reportage on the recent Florida and Toronto book banning is a nice in-depth treatment of two current events the reader probably doesn’t know as much about as they think they do. My eyes widened to read some of the eerily totalitarian instruction found in the Ontario school board manuals, the fact of thousands of books being sent to literal garbage dumps, the surprising books selected by “progressives” for removal (Anne Frank; literally every book published before 2008, in the name of keeping material ‘current’ and ‘relevant’ to students’ lives).
Beyond this book’s primary focus on official book banning practices in Florida and Ontario, you learn about quiet a few recent manifestations of modern censorship of which I was unaware - the rise in book banning in prisons, the extent to which publishers now regularly have to engage in First Amendment litigation, the use of the Comstock Act to force courier companies to censor what they deliver, and the candid fascism of Project 2025 on this particular subject. I was especially gratified to see reporting on the explicitly homophobic and transphobic statements by the Muslim Association of Canada and Canadian Council of Muslims, giving the lie to the SJW fantasy that all minority groups can be equally accommodated and no hard moral/political/cultural choices need be made. Pretty shocked to see that the Ottawa-Carlton school board ruled against LGBTQ+ students/parents in that episode.
On Book Banning also excels when it gets into more targeted argument. Ira demolishes the seminal CRT text, Words That Wound , from which all contemporary SJW censorship traces its intellectual lineage. To be clear, Wells would probably wince at my use of the word “demolish” there, as he goes to great pains to appreciate the postmodernists, post-structuralists, and CRT folks for what they are worth. I sense he does this through genuine intellectual appreciation, not just to pragmatically distinguish himself from the Republican/conservative anti-CRT hysteria down south and the countless idiots who refer to “postmodernism” who have never read a postmodernist. I continue to find the arguments of Foucault/Derrida/Holquist/et al. to be so dumb and unhelpful, and the pretence of profundity their fans claim to be so grating…that I could not muster the same respect Wells does if I were writing this book, so kudos to him for that.
Surprised that student voices, with a couple small exceptions, are largely absent from the book. Had they not been consulted extensively in the policy development phase of the school board book removal initiatives? Or interviewed by journalists? Is there no polling data for how students themselves actually feel about this censorship? Whether they really do feel harmed by (and correspondingly protected from) nasty words in century old books? Are they so condescended to and infantilized that nobody’s bothered asking them?
I found myself wishing there was an index at several points, but again, Wells probably consciously chose to skip one due to the “pamphlet” formatting of the book (it’s literally even shaped like pamphlet, which is cute). Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t applaud Ira Wells’ prose, which is forceful, concise, and even artful at points, contrary to what you would expect from an academic.
This book should be mandatory reading for all high school students, everywhere. It’s a completely persuasive essay on the value of reading widely for critical thinking and self-development. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be allowed on shelves where it is needed most - schools where overbearing parents and teachers view the school as a site of indoctrination and students as mere receptacles of moral instruction. If only there was some kind of Minister of Education, empowered to step in and do something in the face of this anti-educational conduct by school boards…
“This is what makes book banning so deeply offensive: It represents an attack on your intellectual autonomy, your right to determine the future of your own mind. It would prevent you from becoming the person you want to be.”
“”More speech” is [alleged to be] liberal doublespeak which would excuse the continued existence of harmful representations - an apology for systemic racism, as well as an example of it. Or, as the PDSB manual puts it: “we cannot layer new inclusive and exciting resources alongside racist, oppressive and colonial resources!””
—
An excellent and timely book.
A lot of the potted history of censorship and free speech theorizing over the last 5 centuries won’t be new to anyone with even passing interest in the subject. Wells himself foreshadows this with his opening Voltaire quote - his book is meant more as a “pamphlet” than a groundbreaking work of scholarship. Many of the arguments will be familiar to anyone who took college courses in this area, or who has read recent publications on the subject - notably Strossen’s Hate and Garton Ash’s Free Speech.
But Well’s reportage on the recent Florida and Toronto book banning is a nice in-depth treatment of two current events the reader probably doesn’t know as much about as they think they do. My eyes widened to read some of the eerily totalitarian instruction found in the Ontario school board manuals, the fact of thousands of books being sent to literal garbage dumps, the surprising books selected by “progressives” for removal (Anne Frank; literally every book published before 2008, in the name of keeping material ‘current’ and ‘relevant’ to students’ lives).
Beyond this book’s primary focus on official book banning practices in Florida and Ontario, you learn about quiet a few recent manifestations of modern censorship of which I was unaware - the rise in book banning in prisons, the extent to which publishers now regularly have to engage in First Amendment litigation, the use of the Comstock Act to force courier companies to censor what they deliver, and the candid fascism of Project 2025 on this particular subject. I was especially gratified to see reporting on the explicitly homophobic and transphobic statements by the Muslim Association of Canada and Canadian Council of Muslims, giving the lie to the SJW fantasy that all minority groups can be equally accommodated and no hard moral/political/cultural choices need be made. Pretty shocked to see that the Ottawa-Carlton school board ruled against LGBTQ+ students/parents in that episode.
On Book Banning also excels when it gets into more targeted argument. Ira demolishes the seminal CRT text, Words That Wound , from which all contemporary SJW censorship traces its intellectual lineage. To be clear, Wells would probably wince at my use of the word “demolish” there, as he goes to great pains to appreciate the postmodernists, post-structuralists, and CRT folks for what they are worth. I sense he does this through genuine intellectual appreciation, not just to pragmatically distinguish himself from the Republican/conservative anti-CRT hysteria down south and the countless idiots who refer to “postmodernism” who have never read a postmodernist. I continue to find the arguments of Foucault/Derrida/Holquist/et al. to be so dumb and unhelpful, and the pretence of profundity their fans claim to be so grating…that I could not muster the same respect Wells does if I were writing this book, so kudos to him for that.
Surprised that student voices, with a couple small exceptions, are largely absent from the book. Had they not been consulted extensively in the policy development phase of the school board book removal initiatives? Or interviewed by journalists? Is there no polling data for how students themselves actually feel about this censorship? Whether they really do feel harmed by (and correspondingly protected from) nasty words in century old books? Are they so condescended to and infantilized that nobody’s bothered asking them?
I found myself wishing there was an index at several points, but again, Wells probably consciously chose to skip one due to the “pamphlet” formatting of the book (it’s literally even shaped like pamphlet, which is cute). Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t applaud Ira Wells’ prose, which is forceful, concise, and even artful at points, contrary to what you would expect from an academic.
This book should be mandatory reading for all high school students, everywhere. It’s a completely persuasive essay on the value of reading widely for critical thinking and self-development. Unfortunately, it’s unlikely to be allowed on shelves where it is needed most - schools where overbearing parents and teachers view the school as a site of indoctrination and students as mere receptacles of moral instruction. If only there was some kind of Minister of Education, empowered to step in and do something in the face of this anti-educational conduct by school boards…
July 23, 2025
Literature isn't reducible - not to summaries or quotations, or to any of these pleasures or values or states of being. And reducing literature is precisely what censorship does: With its ideological checklists or puritanical frameworks, it reduces literature to a shrunken, misshapen parody of itself. A novel teeming with voices and perspectives becomes a single "message," or a wicked idea, a naughty image, or even a single, abominable word.
really good, concise explanation on the current and historical state of book banning and why books even matter. don’t know if i agreed with all of wells’s points (he came at it from a very Western Liberal Nice Guy angle) but did appreciate it for articulating thoughts i’ve struggled to put into words. 3.5.
really good, concise explanation on the current and historical state of book banning and why books even matter. don’t know if i agreed with all of wells’s points (he came at it from a very Western Liberal Nice Guy angle) but did appreciate it for articulating thoughts i’ve struggled to put into words. 3.5.
March 31, 2025
“20 volume folios will never make a revolution. It’s the little pocket pamphlets that are to be feared.“ Voltaire.
That’s the intro page and is very apropos. A well balanced succinct look at all sides of this topic.
Recommend for everyone.
That’s the intro page and is very apropos. A well balanced succinct look at all sides of this topic.
Recommend for everyone.
July 16, 2025
A solid and approachable history of book banning and censorship that's not afraid to call to task the religious-right and the progressive left. It's slim and transportable, too, which is a bonus.
July 8, 2025
Intellectual freedom is under attack by groups acting under moral obligations to protect others, especially children, from ethical corruption. When readers aren’t given the opportunity to decide for themselves what is good or bad and have the choices of what we can and cannot read be made for us, it threatens democracy as a whole. Banning books isn’t a solution to stopping the problems these groups face. If you have a chance to read this pamphlet, it’s worth noting that the arguments range from multiple sides of extreme viewpoints and are completely nonpartisan. Examples of Florida and Toronto show that no matter what issues are trying to be absolved, censuring is not the solution.
March 21, 2025
Concise, clear, and important. This book helped me put a lot of my own thoughts on this subject in order. Cannot recommend this book enough
June 27, 2025
FORTUNATELY, not an instruction manual
February 23, 2025
Thought provoking commentary on the risks of censorship and ideological policing. Asks the reader to resist and revisit their own biases. Great advocation for the freedom to read and the rights of public schools and libraries.
Synthesizes authors like J.S. Mills and John Milton while adding to them with well defended calls to action.
“We defend free speech not to hear the sounds of our own voices, but for the necessity of hearing the voices of others.”
Synthesizes authors like J.S. Mills and John Milton while adding to them with well defended calls to action.
“We defend free speech not to hear the sounds of our own voices, but for the necessity of hearing the voices of others.”
May 10, 2025
I didn’t know I needed this nuanced and articulate explanation to reject something even more than I did, but here we are. This is an incredible call to arms 📚
June 25, 2025
Book banning and censorship seems to have experienced a bit of a resurgence lately, especially if you live in Alberta. Last month, the provincial government held a press conference announcing they were going to be creating a policy that school libraries must follow when stocking their libraries. They asked for input from Albertans (for about two weeks they had a survey open), and the results are ‘currently under review’. They also have a website dedicated to some of the sexually explicit content that has been found in school libraries, which they are concerned about. With all this currently going on, a publicist very rightly pointed out that it would be great time to read and review one of their books published at the beginning of 2025: On Book Banning by Ira Wells. Perfect timing indeed!
Book Summary
This little gem is part of the Biblioasis Field Notes series, which I’ve read and enjoyed in the past. I received the advanced reading copy so there could have been changes in the final version, but what I read was 169 pages of thoroughly researched, well cited, and thought-provoking work on the past history and current state of book banning. A Canadian writer, Wells begins the book with a story of doing some volunteer work at his children’s school in Ontario; parents were asked to help review and audit some of the books in the school library, using an ‘equity-based’ toolkit. Wells found himself crouched in a tiny chair, pulling books of the shelves and inspecting them based on the questions of this toolkit that centers children’s lived experiences. He juxtaposes this story with the famous debates going on in Florida, where parents fight to remove books that mention LGTBQ characters in school libraries across the state. It’s a clever way to frame his argument; people on all sides of the political and religious spectrums believe they are only doing what’s best for kids, but Wells argues that any kind of book censorship, is still censorship. Wells follows a linear timeline, beginning with the earliest records of censorship, then quickly introducing us to certain historical figures that play a large role in this conversation, including the infamous Anthony Comstock, an ‘anti-vice activist’. There’s an impressive number of endnotes, and thankfully, only a few footnotes to interrupt your flow of reading.
My Thoughts
Now that I fundraise for a public library, I see the importance of their stocking of all books, for all people. Many librarians will point out that even though they don’t agree with all the books in the collection, it’s important that they stock them, and make them available all the same. This book focuses on school and public libraries, with the author interviewing different folks from library organizations across North America including his local library system, the Toronto Public Library. Wells brings up many interesting points related to public libraries specifically; the fact that their collections reflect what the public wants and requests, not what someone deems they ‘need’ or ‘should want’. But should school libraries be held to a different standard? Other than ensuring the books are age-appropriate, should books that include sexual scenes be excluded? Wells deftly explains and interrogates both sides of this argument.
There were so many poignant quotes that I marked in my reading, but I’ve narrowed it down to just two. I’m obviously on the side of the author; I believe book banning, culling, or sanitizing is wrong, no matter your intention. Wells builds upon the argument originally penned by famous poet John Milton, who points out that taking the ‘bad’ books from your library doesn’t actually prevent people from turning ‘bad’:
“Censorship not only fails to prevent harm (as children will inevitably be exposed to the full range of human vice and depravity by other means), but becomes a new source of harm in itself: by depriving students of the necessary conditions in which they could meaningfully discover their own virtue” (p. 98-99 of on Book Banning by Ira Wells, ARC edition).
I’ve never understood parents who want to pre-read the books their kids are reading to ensure it’s ‘safe’ for them. I don’t think my children coming across a new viewpoint, situation, or problem in a book is dangerous for them. On the contrary, I’m hopeful it will force them to think about it in that safe space, alone, with a book on their lap. Then, when they are inevitably faced with this same issue in real life they will have already thought about it, (or in my wildest dreams, asked me about it!) so what they’ve read in a book could help prepare them for what’s to come in their lives.
And for any fellow Albertans reading this, the following quote is about a book that has been targeted by the Alberta government, likely to be removed from school libraries soon if it hasn’t already:
“Those who would purify our school libraries do not understand this, or think they know better…They know that Flamer, a queer coming-of-age memoir, is a work of sexual titillation. It does not occur to them that Flamer could inspire compassion, empathy, or self-acceptance…These contemporary Comstocks think they know your child’s mind. They would not only make our decisions for us, but also deprive us of the opportunity to judge for ourselves (p. 109 of On Book Banning)”
Thankfully these books that are currently under scrutiny in school libraries are easily accessible at your local public library, where all are welcome.
To read the rest of my reviews, please visit my blog:
https://ivereadthis.com/
Book Summary
This little gem is part of the Biblioasis Field Notes series, which I’ve read and enjoyed in the past. I received the advanced reading copy so there could have been changes in the final version, but what I read was 169 pages of thoroughly researched, well cited, and thought-provoking work on the past history and current state of book banning. A Canadian writer, Wells begins the book with a story of doing some volunteer work at his children’s school in Ontario; parents were asked to help review and audit some of the books in the school library, using an ‘equity-based’ toolkit. Wells found himself crouched in a tiny chair, pulling books of the shelves and inspecting them based on the questions of this toolkit that centers children’s lived experiences. He juxtaposes this story with the famous debates going on in Florida, where parents fight to remove books that mention LGTBQ characters in school libraries across the state. It’s a clever way to frame his argument; people on all sides of the political and religious spectrums believe they are only doing what’s best for kids, but Wells argues that any kind of book censorship, is still censorship. Wells follows a linear timeline, beginning with the earliest records of censorship, then quickly introducing us to certain historical figures that play a large role in this conversation, including the infamous Anthony Comstock, an ‘anti-vice activist’. There’s an impressive number of endnotes, and thankfully, only a few footnotes to interrupt your flow of reading.
My Thoughts
Now that I fundraise for a public library, I see the importance of their stocking of all books, for all people. Many librarians will point out that even though they don’t agree with all the books in the collection, it’s important that they stock them, and make them available all the same. This book focuses on school and public libraries, with the author interviewing different folks from library organizations across North America including his local library system, the Toronto Public Library. Wells brings up many interesting points related to public libraries specifically; the fact that their collections reflect what the public wants and requests, not what someone deems they ‘need’ or ‘should want’. But should school libraries be held to a different standard? Other than ensuring the books are age-appropriate, should books that include sexual scenes be excluded? Wells deftly explains and interrogates both sides of this argument.
There were so many poignant quotes that I marked in my reading, but I’ve narrowed it down to just two. I’m obviously on the side of the author; I believe book banning, culling, or sanitizing is wrong, no matter your intention. Wells builds upon the argument originally penned by famous poet John Milton, who points out that taking the ‘bad’ books from your library doesn’t actually prevent people from turning ‘bad’:
“Censorship not only fails to prevent harm (as children will inevitably be exposed to the full range of human vice and depravity by other means), but becomes a new source of harm in itself: by depriving students of the necessary conditions in which they could meaningfully discover their own virtue” (p. 98-99 of on Book Banning by Ira Wells, ARC edition).
I’ve never understood parents who want to pre-read the books their kids are reading to ensure it’s ‘safe’ for them. I don’t think my children coming across a new viewpoint, situation, or problem in a book is dangerous for them. On the contrary, I’m hopeful it will force them to think about it in that safe space, alone, with a book on their lap. Then, when they are inevitably faced with this same issue in real life they will have already thought about it, (or in my wildest dreams, asked me about it!) so what they’ve read in a book could help prepare them for what’s to come in their lives.
And for any fellow Albertans reading this, the following quote is about a book that has been targeted by the Alberta government, likely to be removed from school libraries soon if it hasn’t already:
“Those who would purify our school libraries do not understand this, or think they know better…They know that Flamer, a queer coming-of-age memoir, is a work of sexual titillation. It does not occur to them that Flamer could inspire compassion, empathy, or self-acceptance…These contemporary Comstocks think they know your child’s mind. They would not only make our decisions for us, but also deprive us of the opportunity to judge for ourselves (p. 109 of On Book Banning)”
Thankfully these books that are currently under scrutiny in school libraries are easily accessible at your local public library, where all are welcome.
To read the rest of my reviews, please visit my blog:
https://ivereadthis.com/
August 23, 2025
This is a timely book for anyone concerned about censorship and the increasing attacks on libraries. I appreciated the Canadian context the author provides, and the fact that he calls out book banners no matter where they are on the ideological spectrum. The context provided in this book helped me to clarify my own thinking and my commitment to the freedom to read
November 18, 2025
A great primer — I think anyone who enjoys reading should read this book.
November 3, 2025
Comprehensive, critical, sobering, affirming and timely. This is one of those books that every human should read.
October 26, 2025
Trying to read more Canadian non-fiction, and I heard an interview where the author more or less went over the book. Still, the beginning felt a little too reactionary, the middle seemed a little precious, but the finale was the more ponderous examination I was hoping for, though still not completely satisfying.
May 27, 2025
Ira Wells has published something incredibly special here with “On Book Banning”. This is as Must Read as anything I’ll encounter in 2025. It is an impassioned and vigorous stance against the calamitous book censoring happening on both sides of the North American political spectrum contemporarily. His writing is sharp and resonant, his presentation and hope for the future sincere, and his neutral stance within the breadth of the controversy buoys his argument for as much freely available written material as possible.
Sure, there is a bit of lack in nuance and more intricate discussion. Like, what about age appropriateness? Differentiating more widely between public availability and elementary/middle/high school availability? How about other entertainment and educational mediums like video games, television, social media, etc? Ira touches on these, but never has the room to delve deeper by purposeful design.
This is a tight book, meant to focus solely on keeping books available to interested readers at a time when less people are interested in reading than ever before. It is an exceptional, concise, and effective one at that.
Sure, there is a bit of lack in nuance and more intricate discussion. Like, what about age appropriateness? Differentiating more widely between public availability and elementary/middle/high school availability? How about other entertainment and educational mediums like video games, television, social media, etc? Ira touches on these, but never has the room to delve deeper by purposeful design.
This is a tight book, meant to focus solely on keeping books available to interested readers at a time when less people are interested in reading than ever before. It is an exceptional, concise, and effective one at that.
February 21, 2025
I have Complicated Feelings about this book, which I will try to express in my forthcoming Booklist review. There's a lot here to value, and it's an important book that I think libraries should have. There were a few points that made me bristle in Librarian.
January 10, 2026
On Book Banning is a timely, incisive, and deeply necessary intervention in the escalating debates around censorship, education, and democracy. Ira Wells approaches a highly polarized subject with intellectual rigor and moral clarity, resisting the easy binaries that dominate contemporary discourse. Rather than framing book bans as the exclusive domain of any one political ideology, Wells exposes a shared cultural impulse toward control one that threatens literature itself by reducing it to a tool of ideological compliance.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its historical depth. Wells situates today’s censorship battles within a long continuum, tracing efforts to suppress reading from ancient Rome through religious orthodoxy, legal battles, and modern culture wars. This historical framing powerfully dismantles the illusion that censorship is a corrective response to contemporary “dangers,” revealing instead that restriction has been the norm and freedom the hard-won exception. The result is a sobering reminder of how fragile intellectual liberty truly is.
Wells is particularly persuasive in his critique of the instrumentalization of literature. By treating books as vectors of harm or moral contamination rather than as complex, ambiguous works of art—both conservative and progressive censors undermine the very purpose of reading. Wells argues that this approach teaches readers, especially young ones, to fear discomfort, avoid complexity, and equate disagreement with danger. In doing so, censorship trivializes art and erodes the democratic habit of grappling with opposing ideas.
The prose is accessible without sacrificing sophistication. Wells guides readers through legal precedents, philosophical arguments, and literary controversies with clarity and momentum, making the book valuable not only to scholars but to educators, librarians, parents, and general readers. His tone is firm yet measured, passionate without being polemical, and grounded in a deep respect for literature as a shared human inheritance.
Ultimately, On Book Banning is both a warning and a call to action. It insists that defending the freedom to read is inseparable from defending democracy itself. In a cultural moment defined by polarization and fear, Wells offers a compelling reminder that literature’s power lies precisely in its refusal to conform, simplify, or reassure. This book is essential reading for anyone committed to intellectual freedom, artistic integrity, and the enduring necessity of reading for ourselves.
One of the book’s greatest strengths is its historical depth. Wells situates today’s censorship battles within a long continuum, tracing efforts to suppress reading from ancient Rome through religious orthodoxy, legal battles, and modern culture wars. This historical framing powerfully dismantles the illusion that censorship is a corrective response to contemporary “dangers,” revealing instead that restriction has been the norm and freedom the hard-won exception. The result is a sobering reminder of how fragile intellectual liberty truly is.
Wells is particularly persuasive in his critique of the instrumentalization of literature. By treating books as vectors of harm or moral contamination rather than as complex, ambiguous works of art—both conservative and progressive censors undermine the very purpose of reading. Wells argues that this approach teaches readers, especially young ones, to fear discomfort, avoid complexity, and equate disagreement with danger. In doing so, censorship trivializes art and erodes the democratic habit of grappling with opposing ideas.
The prose is accessible without sacrificing sophistication. Wells guides readers through legal precedents, philosophical arguments, and literary controversies with clarity and momentum, making the book valuable not only to scholars but to educators, librarians, parents, and general readers. His tone is firm yet measured, passionate without being polemical, and grounded in a deep respect for literature as a shared human inheritance.
Ultimately, On Book Banning is both a warning and a call to action. It insists that defending the freedom to read is inseparable from defending democracy itself. In a cultural moment defined by polarization and fear, Wells offers a compelling reminder that literature’s power lies precisely in its refusal to conform, simplify, or reassure. This book is essential reading for anyone committed to intellectual freedom, artistic integrity, and the enduring necessity of reading for ourselves.
November 22, 2025
Very focussed on events and happenings in the North American region.
Ira’s words have helped frame my own perspectives on banning. In his essay he dips deeply into historical events spanning human civilization. I laughed when I learned about the Roman tool of memory erasure, and how it achieved the exact opposite effect - we remember those who authorities deemed to be forgotten. Banning in his words, and I agree as well, has the exact opposite effect of what it intends to achieve, and if it doesn’t it just causes harm.
Another point Ira makes, that I share, and he dives into it, is that of ideas winning on the merits of their existence and battles against other ideas - the continual search for truth. And that truth cannot be reached if there isn’t a false to contrast it against, or in a similar way where good can only be measured in contrast to evil. Expressive freedom allows all knowledge to exist and all of us to build a critical mindset while being steeped in debate, which isn’t exactly the case today. Anecdotally, I enjoy reading literature that is opposed to my views, because it gives me firstly a view of what the other sides are thinking, secondly it allows me to contrast my ideas against theirs and to engage in informed debate.
Finally a note on Social Media, I’m glad that Ira touched on this. On the surface social media can seem like an open and free space for ideas to flourish, but as much as our platform overlords would want to convince us otherwise - it is not. Ira makes a great and in some sense a subtle point - platforms own the algorithms that decide which ideas and creators should see the light of day through our screens and streams; in a way this is a form of censorship.
Ira’s words have helped frame my own perspectives on banning. In his essay he dips deeply into historical events spanning human civilization. I laughed when I learned about the Roman tool of memory erasure, and how it achieved the exact opposite effect - we remember those who authorities deemed to be forgotten. Banning in his words, and I agree as well, has the exact opposite effect of what it intends to achieve, and if it doesn’t it just causes harm.
Another point Ira makes, that I share, and he dives into it, is that of ideas winning on the merits of their existence and battles against other ideas - the continual search for truth. And that truth cannot be reached if there isn’t a false to contrast it against, or in a similar way where good can only be measured in contrast to evil. Expressive freedom allows all knowledge to exist and all of us to build a critical mindset while being steeped in debate, which isn’t exactly the case today. Anecdotally, I enjoy reading literature that is opposed to my views, because it gives me firstly a view of what the other sides are thinking, secondly it allows me to contrast my ideas against theirs and to engage in informed debate.
Finally a note on Social Media, I’m glad that Ira touched on this. On the surface social media can seem like an open and free space for ideas to flourish, but as much as our platform overlords would want to convince us otherwise - it is not. Ira makes a great and in some sense a subtle point - platforms own the algorithms that decide which ideas and creators should see the light of day through our screens and streams; in a way this is a form of censorship.
April 19, 2025
The arguments in this book are important and Wells tries to cover both sides but I would argue that his belief that “pseudo-scientific, conspiratorial or historically inaccurate material that is permissible in public libraries” but should not be allowed in school libraries is wrong. I do think the library should focus on materials that are factual and not give space to anti-vax “vaccines cause autism” arguments. I think he and I just sit on slightly different viewpoints, he seems to believe that every idea and viewpoint should be represented both as a book an in libraries (he mentions a form of pseudo-banning where books are not published because of their ideology) whereas I think certain standards over quality of research and accuracy are important particularly in non-fiction holdings. I do however agree that there is a way to teach potentially harmful and racist works from different time periods well and that books should not be banned just for being racist (I agree with this primarily in historical “classics”)
Anyways this is a book that makes you think but it seems as though Wells was not entirely clear on his own perspective, his opinion seems to differ between chapters, and wrote in a super dense and hard to understand without specific knowledge about the history and philosophy of intellectual freedoms.
Also it kinda seems like so many of his issues particularly with school libraries could be solved IF WE JUST PUT ACTUAL WELL FUNDED LIBRARIANS IN CHARGE
Anyways this is a book that makes you think but it seems as though Wells was not entirely clear on his own perspective, his opinion seems to differ between chapters, and wrote in a super dense and hard to understand without specific knowledge about the history and philosophy of intellectual freedoms.
Also it kinda seems like so many of his issues particularly with school libraries could be solved IF WE JUST PUT ACTUAL WELL FUNDED LIBRARIANS IN CHARGE
October 17, 2025
It’s very well done for how short it is. It makes a very compelling anti-censorship argument, and does a good job of dispelling the counter arguments. I think it didn’t really answer the question of how to deal with misinformation on social media, or how to deal with hate speech. He talks a little bit about how if something is inciting violence, then it would be permissible to censor that. But not all hate speech is inherently, inspiring violence. However, I am still of the opinion that non-violent hate speech should not be protected right. Realistically, I do see how That sort of logic could lead to book bans and over-censored environments. So I’m not super sure what the solution is.
As I alluded to Wells does bring up that’s social media is problematic in terms of being an open forum of ideas (obviously, given the bias-affirmation nature of social media) but there is no real solution offered. Fact checkers are probably a good start, reformation of the algorithm? Either way I think we still need to hold those organizations who make the various platforms accountable for the objectively harmful rhetoric that they are not only allowing, but actively encouraging.
Anyways it’s under 200 pages and overall gives a good history, contemporary snapshot, and pretty solid arguments, all things considered.
As I alluded to Wells does bring up that’s social media is problematic in terms of being an open forum of ideas (obviously, given the bias-affirmation nature of social media) but there is no real solution offered. Fact checkers are probably a good start, reformation of the algorithm? Either way I think we still need to hold those organizations who make the various platforms accountable for the objectively harmful rhetoric that they are not only allowing, but actively encouraging.
Anyways it’s under 200 pages and overall gives a good history, contemporary snapshot, and pretty solid arguments, all things considered.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 18, 2026
This is the most thoughtful book on the subject of book banning that I've encountered. Too many such books seek to incite, while On Book Banning truly wants to engage. Though the author expresses progressive views and hopes to steer the reader toward desiring progressive outcomes at times, he unapologetically calls out his ideological allies and detractors alike.
With a side by side comparison of Ontario's hyperaggressive library weeding programs and Florida's parents' rights campaigns focused on school libraries, Ira Wells invites the reader to examine the *means* more so that the ideologies of these ideological opposites.
In addition, he takes the reader on a tour of notable campaigns against books (and codices and scrolls) throughout history, visiting eras that most of us have never considered. And unlike the common partisan arguments of today, he doesn't simply seek a comparison between a horrific historic regime and a modern political adversary. Rather, he examines each historical period through its own lens, and within its own time. This distillation again challenges the reader to examine the *means*, with the added benefit of being able to also examine its long-term historical impact (or lack thereof).
With a side by side comparison of Ontario's hyperaggressive library weeding programs and Florida's parents' rights campaigns focused on school libraries, Ira Wells invites the reader to examine the *means* more so that the ideologies of these ideological opposites.
In addition, he takes the reader on a tour of notable campaigns against books (and codices and scrolls) throughout history, visiting eras that most of us have never considered. And unlike the common partisan arguments of today, he doesn't simply seek a comparison between a horrific historic regime and a modern political adversary. Rather, he examines each historical period through its own lens, and within its own time. This distillation again challenges the reader to examine the *means*, with the added benefit of being able to also examine its long-term historical impact (or lack thereof).
January 22, 2026
Succinct and resonant. Canadian writer/professor Ira Wells draws from examples of progressive and conservative book bans, both of which are increasing. A Winnipeg Free Press Best Book of 2025.
I found the author's thesis expertly argued: the experience of engaging literature is not reducible to any single element. This is what makes literature so remarkable, and why the freedom to access it is so essential to maintain in a free and democratic society. This access necessarily includes material that you as an individual are likely to find wildly objectionable. It’s why libraries are often one of the first targets for totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
The author also solidifies the vital importance of libraries being physical repositories of knowledge. As wonderful and vital as access to e-books is, it must not supplant physical acquisitions. Libraries do not own e-books; they instead pay OverDrive a licensing fee with an expiration date (often covering two years, or 24 check outs). It is far too easy for ideological legislatures to initiate restrictions on e-materials. Physical copies therefore still play an essential role in retaining knowledge.
A timely read for anyone who cares about access to literature.
I found the author's thesis expertly argued: the experience of engaging literature is not reducible to any single element. This is what makes literature so remarkable, and why the freedom to access it is so essential to maintain in a free and democratic society. This access necessarily includes material that you as an individual are likely to find wildly objectionable. It’s why libraries are often one of the first targets for totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.
The author also solidifies the vital importance of libraries being physical repositories of knowledge. As wonderful and vital as access to e-books is, it must not supplant physical acquisitions. Libraries do not own e-books; they instead pay OverDrive a licensing fee with an expiration date (often covering two years, or 24 check outs). It is far too easy for ideological legislatures to initiate restrictions on e-materials. Physical copies therefore still play an essential role in retaining knowledge.
A timely read for anyone who cares about access to literature.
September 24, 2025
This book gripped me - it was short, punchy, and full of Canadian-based examples of book banning that I'd previously been unaware of. It's too easy to name book banning and other anti-progressive movements as a wholly American experience; then, if some semblance of far-right conservatism crosses our borders, we laugh or mock or weep for Alberta. I hadn't known about the book banning efforts in Ontario in the name of progress. It was a sobering realization, to know that we're a lot closer to the tipping point than is publicly recognized.
This book mixed current events, a history of book banning, and the philosophy behind the human right to reading, education, and the ability to critically examine texts - whether they align with our values or not. I want to delve into some of the source material for this book to expand my own knowledge, and my desire to support public libraries and online information repositories has only been strengthened.
This book mixed current events, a history of book banning, and the philosophy behind the human right to reading, education, and the ability to critically examine texts - whether they align with our values or not. I want to delve into some of the source material for this book to expand my own knowledge, and my desire to support public libraries and online information repositories has only been strengthened.
November 22, 2025
This book discusses recent attempts from both the right and the left to ban books from school libraries. There is a brief history of book banning and of prominent defenses of freedom of expression. The author’s discussions of conservative attempts to purge school libraries in Florida and progressive activities in Ontario to do the same are both interesting and infuriating. But the most important part of the book is its comments on what the function of literature is and its critiques of those who would reduce it to either moralizing or identity affirmation. Book banners of whatever stripe deprive kids of the ability to exercise critical capacity, engage with alternative points of view, understand context and history, and become open-minded, questioning, and curious readers. Recommended as a good introduction to the issues and for igniting a discussion of the function of both literature and education.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews