The Library Bill of Rights is clear in addressing how services are provided through libraries with respect to information and ideas. When developing the library collection for both print and digital materials, it is incredibly important that libraries and librarians "ensure all members of the community they serve have free, equal, and equitable access to the entire range of library resources regardless of content, approach, format, or amount of detail" (AASL, 2018, p. 239). Policies that restrict or exclude the inclusion of materials, access to information and materials, or abridge library use, even for minors, is neither equitable, nor aligned to the professional obligations of libraries and librarians. A librarian's role in educating all stakeholders on the importance and value of intellectual freedom is fundamental knowledge for our society and its growth and development. For school libraries, existing within an education setting and having students and educators as the primary users of the library, it is vital that they "have access to resources and services free of constraints resulting from personal, partisan, or doctrinal disapproval" (AASL, 2018, p. 242). Imposing restrictions to materials limits users on their exposure to a variety of perspectives, ideas, and cultures which also limits opportunities for critical thinking, learning and practicing respect for others, and individual growth among other things. There are situations for both public and school libraries with the internet, for example, where restrictions or limitations through the installation of content filters are present in order to comply with the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) or state filtering requirements due to federal and state funding for various Acts and programs being tied to this compliance in order to receive funding for library services, materials, and technology (AASL, 2018, p. 249). These various content filters are intended for safety, but are also in conflict with the Library Bill of Rights, and oftentimes, ineffective for a variety of reasons.

In a similar vein to internet filtering, the creation of apps, such as Clean Reader, are promoted with the intention of providing safety and comfort for eBook readers to "keep users who hate naughty words from having to see them" (Starr, 2018). In theory, this seems like it could be a good thing and was created with good intentions, but the bottom line is an app such as this changes the integrity and meaning of the text it is being applied to, ultimately becoming an issue of censorship. Similar to some of the pitfalls with internet filtering, Clean Reader and other apps like it are far from accurate with its word replacement collection having been created to replace one word with another that has a very specific denotation and connotation. Unfortunately, in an effort to soften the use of "naughty words", replacement words and phrases can make the book and meaning less clear or generalize the ideas being communicated due to this "cleaning". Several of the authors quoted in Starr's article shared similar sentiments about Clean Reader, asserting that authors spend a lot of time selecting words and phrasing their ideas for their texts, and their texts are meant to be read with those exact words for a particular purpose. By using apps like Clean Reader, books are not being presented in the way they were intended when author's words are being changed, and therefore, changes the meaning and feel of the text.

Several really important ideas were raised about the negative impacts that book banning has on readers - children, adolescents, young adults - for equitable access to diverse and inclusive books in both the blog post by Kristin Pekoll about the book The One Summer being banned in Henning, MN published in the Office of Intellectual Freedom blog by American Library Association in 2016 and the video produced by Sage, also in 2016, featuring several authors discussing intellectual freedom and the freedom to read for all. With Pekoll's blog post about the banning of The One Summer from Henning School District in Henning, MN, she addresses several issues surrounding the decision that highlights the importance of having clear and sound policies in place for situations where books are challenged by the public. Pekoll's first big issue highlights how vital it is, even for a small, rural town such as Henning, to have a clear reconsideration policy in place. With Henning, because they lacked a policy and instead had a general procedure for a parent complaint to be made to the principal, then the principal to make the decision with no required consultation with the librarian, professional reviews, or even the challenger to reading the book in its entirety is in conflict with students' rights to intellectual freedom and everything it entails (2016). Pekoll's post also addresses issues of self-censorship which, as a school librarian, ensuring that I am thorough and reflective when it comes to selecting new materials for our collection that are diverse and inclusive of our entire student body and community will be especially important. Understanding the issues with censorship and being able to articulate this to other stakeholders such as parents, admin, and others will also be vital in maintaining the intellectual freedom and rights of all my library users.

The video by Sage extended on the issue of book banning. The presentations given by several authors of titles that have experienced challenges and disputes due to individuals' issues with the content of the books and how various beliefs and people are presented in these books in an effort to support inclusivity and diversity provides much insight into the stark divisions within our society of those who are open-minded and accepting of all and those who vehemently oppose views and lifestyles different from their own and seek to censor and ban anything they do not believe in or support. When movements to ban books occur, there are dangerous messages being sent surrounding kindness, acceptance, diversity, and tolerance. Storytelling presents the reader with a path into developing empathy and understanding for others. Without storytelling, we end up only knowing ourselves. We are unable to understand anything outside of a white cisgender individual's lifestyle as also being normal/acceptable/valid.

On May 25, 2022, I interviewed Brooke Fuendling, librarian at Lincoln College Preparatory Academy (LCPA), a public high school serving grades 9-12 in the Kansas City Missouri Public School District (KCPS). Brooke has been the librarian at LCPA for the last eight years.

In her time serving as librarian, Brooke has not experienced any book or material challenges, nor does the library have any restricted shelving sections. All library materials are available and accessible to all students and staff.

Materials are not labeled on their spine with the reading level. This is viewed as infringing on the privacy of students because the reading level of their choice books can be easily seen by peers, but it can also deter students from selecting many high-interest titles to read and create barriers to building a love for reading by associating it with certain reading levels. In Brooke's words "that's just gross".

The library's Internet Acceptable Use Policy, selection policy, and reconsideration process are all accessible on the school library's homepage for the public to review as needed/desired.

When asked about an issue of self-censorship and if she had concerns about not selecting well-reviewed material because she would just as soon avoid dealing with a possible censorship issue, Brooke responded by saying "absolutely not". Brooke has spent her entire eight years as the LCPA librarian weeding and building a library collection that is diverse and inclusive with high-interest and current materials reflective of the school community. Not only does she not have concerns with self-censorship, she embraces every opportunity to reflect and evaluate the materials that are added to the collection by focusing on how it aligns with the diversity and inclusivity of the collection, never whether or not someone may challenge the text.