The 3 - October 12, 2025

In the state of Alabama, the question over whether or not objectionable, sexually-oriented material can be made available to children in public libraries has yielded some positive results, but there is more to be done to ensure that children are protected from this material.  A federal judge has issued a key ruling saying that school libraries have discretion about the types of books they choose to carry.  Liberty Counsel, on its website, reports:

A federal judge recently ruled that Florida’s Escambia County School Board can remove a penguin-themed children’s book depicting “same-sex marriage” from its libraries and that such action does not violate the First Amendment.

The website notes that Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor "...explained the library’s decision to remove the book does not keep the book or its viewpoint from the student since the book is available elsewhere. Furthermore, Judge Winsor noted, the authors also do not have a First Amendment right to demand that the library 'ignore the book’s viewpoint'" when deciding whether to include it in its collection."  The judge stated, “By definition, libraries must have discretion to keep certain ideas—certain viewpoints—off the shelves...," and said that is how libraries have been operating "for two centuries."

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, heard on Freedom's Call on Faith Radio, commented: “School boards have the discretion to keep inappropriate material off the bookshelves and away from children. Gender ideology has no place in public education and school officials should protect children from indoctrination.”

Counselors who use the Bible as the basis when dealing with clients should be able to use the Scripture in their practice - but a Colorado law prevents these counselors from counseling young people to overcome same-sex attraction.  And, that's why counselor Kaley Chiles was before the U.S. Supreme Court recently.   The SCOTUS Blog relates:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday morning appeared largely sympathetic to a Colorado licensed counselor who is challenging the state’s ban on conversion therapy – that is, treatment intended to change a client’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for young people. In Chiles v. Salazar, a majority of the justices seemed to agree with the counselor, Kaley Chiles, that the ban discriminates against her based on the views that she expresses in her therapy. But several justices suggested that, rather than striking the law down outright, the court should send the case back to the lower courts for them to take a closer look at whether the law passes constitutional muster.

Alliance Defending Freedom represents Chiles, and its website notes:

Chiles wants to help young people distressed about their gender achieve their chosen goal to grow comfortable with their bodies and avoid harmful drugs and procedures. But Colorado law forbids her from having those voluntary conversations with her minor clients.

ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell is quoted as saying:  “Colorado’s law allows counselors to push kids down the path of gender transition, often leading to harmful drugs and surgeries. But it doesn’t allow compassionate counselors like Kaley to talk with kids to help them accept their bodies—even when that is their express goal and they have voluntarily sought Kaley out for advice,” adding, “This is censorship, pure and simple. Colorado is picking sides, promoting gender ideology, and banning conversations it dislikes. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will uphold counselors’ freedom of speech and young people’s ability to set their own goals of living at peace with their bodies.”

Throughout the past few years, there have been reports of Christian people who have posted content on social media platforms, only to see it removed or demonitized.  Well, those who faced instances of having their content removed by Google, including YouTube, will apparently be reinstated, according to a Washington Times article, which said: "In December of 2020, YouTube announced it had 'terminated' more than 8,000 channels and thousands of 'harmful and misleading' videos related to the 2020 election, including content that alleged 'widespread fraud or errors' had skewed the election results."  YouTube had also banned users who related information about the COVID-19 vaccine, placing it in a negative light.

The Times article noted: "Those who saw their YouTube videos and other content banned during COVID-19 and the 2020 election were invited back to the platform...in an astonishing mea culpa from the company that blamed their censorship on Biden administration pressure tactics."  It said, "Alphabet Inc., the company that operates Google and YouTube, wrote in a letter Tuesday to Congress that they were forced into removing content by Mr. Biden and his senior aides."

FoxNews.com reported: "Google detailed its remarkable shift in a document, first obtained by Fox News Digital, that a lawyer for the company provided to the House Judiciary Committee."  The attorney wrote, "Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect..."  Alphabet, like Meta, have reported that government officials exerted pressure to refine the type of content being shared on their platforms.