Opinion: Defending Utah’s children from harmful content isn’t censorship — it’s our duty

It was profoundly disheartening to see KSL feature an article on Aug. 5 titled “‘A dark day:’ Removal of 13 books from all public school libraries in Utah prompts strong reactions.” The piece, instead of honoring the diligent efforts of parents, teachers and administrators to safeguard our children, seemed to undermine them, inadvertently supporting those who advocate for exposing children to explicit and indecent materials in K-12 public schools.

Let’s be clear: Neither KSL nor any other responsible media outlet would dare publish the full content or even a detailed description of these 13 books — or the many others still present in our schools. Why? Because these materials are simply too explicit and vulgar. Yet, despite this, they are somehow deemed acceptable for our children by those featured in the article.

This issue is about far more than a few removed books. The question at the heart of this debate is whether we, as a society, prioritize the physical, social and psychological well-being of our children. The 13 books removed from Utah’s public schools were not isolated cases but a response to growing concerns about the kind of content available to impressionable young minds. Parents, teachers and administrators who challenged these titles did so because they recognized the harmful effects of exposing children to graphically explicit sexual content.

The article seemed to dismiss these valid concerns, instead giving voice to those who argue that such protective measures amount to “dystopian censorship.” This perspective, however, overlooks the significant body of research that shows the devastating effects of exposure to explicit sexual material, particularly on children. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that early exposure to sexually indecent and pornographic content leads to a range of negative outcomes, including decreased brain weight and development, increased sexual activity at younger ages, distorted views of relationships and mental health issues such as anxiety and depression.

One of the sources quoted in the story suggested that removing these books from K-12 public schools could lead to a slippery slope of censorship. However, this argument fails to acknowledge the difference between censorship and responsible curation. In a public school setting, where the primary goals are education and the healthy development of students, it is not only appropriate but necessary to curate content that aligns with these goals. Allowing children unrestricted access to physically addictive sexual material that is too explicit for adult discussion does not equate to “freedom” — it is reckless.

Another concern raised in the article is that many of the removed books were written by women, implying that the effort to protect children from explicit content is somehow rooted in misogyny. This argument, and similar arguments of racism or homophobia, is not only misleading but also distracts from the real issue at hand: the protection of children. The gender (or race or sexual orientation) of an author of hyper-sexualized content is irrelevant when the content in question is dangerous to children. What matters is whether the material is suitable for young readers at all — a standard that these books, and hundreds more still in Utah K-12 public schools, fail to meet.

The removal of these books is not about restricting anyone’s freedom of expression; it is about setting responsible boundaries that protect the physical, emotional and psychological development of our children. HB374 and HB29 were passed with the express purpose of ensuring the expeditious removal of vulgar, indecent and pornographic material that may have inappropriately or inadvertently found its way into our schools. These laws are not about limiting freedom — they are about safeguarding the innocence and self-governing virtue of our youth.

The protection of children from harmful content should not be a controversial issue. It is the fundamental responsibility of any society that values its future. The idea that shielding children from explicit material is “dystopian” is not only misguided but dangerous. If we fail to protect our children now, we are setting them up for a lifetime of challenges readily avoided by a more careful, thoughtful approach to the content to which they are exposed.

In light of the growing mental health crisis among our youth and the disintegration of the family unit, it is more important than ever to protect children from material that exacerbates these issues. This is not just a moral imperative but a societal one. The prohibitive costs of failing to do so are too great to ignore.

I urge all to support the efforts of parents, teachers, administrators, clergy and lawmakers who are working to protect our children. It is time for responsible leaders and media everywhere to stand with those who prioritize the well-being of our youth over sensationalism and controversy. Let us remember that true freedom is not defined by the absence of boundaries, but by “liberty in law” — including safeguards that protect those who cannot protect themselves, like our most precious and abundant Utah resource: our children.

The protection of our children is not up for debate — it is our duty!

Ken Ivory is the Utah state representative for District 39.