BOSTON — Authors, librarians and free speech advocates gathered at the State House on Tuesday to say that, as attempts to restrict books rise across the nation, passage of proposed legislation titled “An Act Regarding Free Expression” would declare that in Massachusetts, no material could be removed from school and public libraries for “personal, political or doctrinal views or bias.”
The bill was passed by the state Senate last November and is now before the House Committee on Ways and Means for review.
“With the recent introduction of H.R. 7661, which the United States House of Representatives mendaciously titled ‘Stop the Sexualization of Children Act,’ the federal government is well on its way to tell us what we can and can’t read,” said Malinda Lo, a National Book Award-winning author and member of the Massachusetts Freedom to Read coalition. “The people most affected by bills like this are also the most vulnerable: LGBT people, people of color and young people. But we can fight back here in Massachusetts. Using our state laws to protect Massachusetts residents and send a message to Washington that we can decide for ourselves what we want to read, that we support our First Amendment rights and the freedom to read.”
If passed, the federal bill, which was filed in February by U.S. Rep. Mary Miller of Illinois, would ban the use of federal funding to purchase materials or host events at schools that promote or include sexually explicit content or sexually oriented material, which the bill states “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.”
Lo joined other authors and legislators at the State House on Tuesday, where a book fair featuring books that had been challenged in Massachusetts was being held, to advocate for legislation requiring that books be added or removed from school and public libraries in accordance with collection development policies. The bill would allow parents and community members to continue questioning books in collections, as long as the concern is about the material as a whole rather than just portions of it, and as long as it is not due to political, personal or religious reasons.
“We can decide for ourselves what we want to read.”
Author Malinda Lo
State Sen. Jo Comerford, D-Northampton, said in a phone interview Wednesday that “An Act Regarding Free Expression” is a “significant guardrail” against politically motivated book bannings, and she is proud to have worked on the bill. Comerford had filed an amendment while the bill was in the Senate, requiring that the material being reviewed be considered as a whole, and not restricted or banned based on just portions of it.
“It was heavily worked on and made better by authors and librarians and artists,” Comerford said. “No bill ever comes out of the State House the way it came in.”
She said the protections for free speech and expression in the bill are “urgently needed.” Through discussion and debate, the Senate made the bill as strong as it could, and Comerford said she hopes House members see that and view the bill entering their chamber as a “clean baton pass.”
“I’m sure there’s great consideration in the House,” Comerford said. “I’m proud the Senate prioritized this and got it passed. … We’ll be able to get this across the finish line.”
During a press conference on Tuesday, Rep. Adam Scanlon, D-North Attleborough, said protections are needed because, contrary to popular belief, book-banning attempts do occur in Massachusetts.
“I previously thought these book bans only happened elsewhere, but then we found out about dozens of attempts to remove books from schools here in Massachusetts. Attempts to prevent kids and their families from deciding what books, what information they should have access to, rather than let kids and their families decide for themselves,” Scanlon said. “I found out this happened right here in my own town with the book ‘Woke’ by Mahogany Browne. And, allegedly, this book was removed from the shelves of an elementary school in North Attleborough because a parent was allegedly concerned about the title of the book.”
“When we talk about banning books, we’re really talking about people whose stories get told and whose stories get censored,” said Andrea Fiorillo, co-chair of the Massachusetts Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom/Social Responsibility Committee. “Recently, it is especially the voices of LGBTQ, Black, Indigenous and Latinx voices who are silenced. Currently in Massachusetts, it’s Palestinian and trans stories who are most often excluded.”
Lo said that since 2021, nearly 16,000 books have been banned across the country, and in Massachusetts, nearly 70 books have been challenged in the last five years, including six of her seven novels.
“My most banned book is ‘Last Night at the Telegraph Club,’ a book about a 17-year-old Chinese-American girl navigating homophobia during the McCarthy era in the 1950s,” Lo said. “Last year, it was banned across all schools in South Carolina, and it was the fourth most-banned book in schools during the entire 2024-2025 school year. “
Fiorillo said book bans are often made citing the protection of children, but managing what materials children consume should be handled by their families. Restricting or banning books removes the rights of families to decide what materials and ideas are best for their children, and removes the books and the ideas inside of them entirely from the shelves.
“In the library, parents have rights and responsibilities for their children to supervise and guide. When a parent raises a concern for their child, we listen. When parents, or more likely, the organizations claiming to speak on their behalf, demand to deny access to everyone else’s children, we pause,” Fiorillo said. “That is authoritarian control. It is not parental control.”
Members of the Massachusetts Freedom to Read coalition urged those serving on the House of Representatives to pass the bill.
“We are here today to urge our friends in the House to move this bill forward as soon as possible. Given all the national attacks on the First Amendment, we believe the time to act to protect First Amendment rights in Massachusetts is now,” Lo said. “Massachusetts has the opportunity to remain a place where freedom is valued and ideas are explored, not erased.”