The American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as "the right [for people] to think for themselves. It respects individual dignity and self-rule. This freedom allows people to form their own ideas and opinions by questioning the world around them" (2023). The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom was established December 1, 1967, and works to implement the library bill of rights; educate people about the importance of intellectual freedom in libraries; and defend library users' ability to read, seek information, and speak freely (American Library Association, n.d., Office for Intellectual Freedom; American Library Association, n.d., Intellectual Freedom). They provide resources on understanding intellectual freedom and first amendment rights, track censorship and book banning attempts, and provide news on intellectual freedom (American Library Association, n.d., Intellectual Freedom).

Governments, among other organizations, push propaganda and advertising designed to garner nationalism and support for a particular country. Lin Thompson (2024) also states that, "there is thus a constant need for ideology to assert its own 'correctness' by making references to the wrongness' of its ideological 'others'" (p. 10). Even in countries with freedom of speech written into their laws, there are often provisions that exclude certain wartime measures, allowing the government to censor content during wars. During World War II in particular, wartime censorship exclusions were used in the United States and Canada to prevent the ideological spread of socialism and "German thought," and to attempt to prevent citizens from doubting war efforts (Merkle & Baer, 2024; Merkle, 2024). This is especially interesting to note as even people who are generally against censorship have often been found to be in support of it in specific circumstances. Wu (2026) noted that those in this group "support censorship when they perceive cues of ‘foreignness,’ which provide extra information about the usually unidentifiable sources of messages on social media. This shifts people’s judgement from the content of the criticism to the characteristics of the sender" (p. 66). 

Another country frequently discussed when it comes to attacks on intellectual freedom is Iran. Karoubi (2024) discusses the censorship the Iranian government conducts and how they limit the books that can be published in the country and the books that can be translated into Persian. They specifically mention how, similar to what Wu (2026) noted in China, foreign books and materials being translated for the Iranian market face higher levels of scrutiny than content published within the country, as it is perceived to have foreign influences. Karoubi (2024) states, "the pervasive nature of censorship limits access to diverse literary works, inhibits the exploration of new ideas, and stifles the growth of the translation industry in Iran" (p. 1143). These books include language learning textbooks, which directly impacts language learners.

Now, it should be noted that attacks on intellectual freedom is not an Iranian problem nor is it a Chinese problem. It is our problem. Even here in the United States, intellectual freedom is being attacked, with language learners being one of the groups of people to suffer from these attacks. In 2025, via executive order, English was designated as the official language of the United States (The White House, 2025). This allows space for organizations to decide not to translate content to other languages and is a state-sanctioned support of monolingualism. Allowing for multilingualism in society allows for people to express their intellectual freedom, people to share knowledge with others in the language they know best, educate future generations on their culture, and so much more. Brutt-Griffler (2020) summarizes this well, saying, "it's not so much dominant languages that threaten endangered ones as the suppression of multilingualism. Ecologies of cultures and languages have always included and incorporated the lingua francas that come and go" (p. 156).

So, with governments across the globe suppressing intellectual freedom and supporting censorship, what can be done? Part three of this mini-series, "Professional Ethics," will be more hopeful and offer solutions and resources to support intellectual freedom and combat censorship. But, it ultimately comes down to the fact that "banning words won't make the world a better place. It'll simply stifle the expression of thoughts that exist anyway" (Ham, 2024).