Intellectual freedom has long been recognized as a core value in the library field, as it ensures users’ rights to access information and express themselves. However, existing studies have primarily focused on the issues of individual intellectual freedom and have rarely analyzed discourses on intellectual freedom comprehensively. This study aims to address this research gap by analyzing keywords, major themes, and evolving trends in research on library-related intellectual freedom since the 2000s. A total of 163 articles were collected from Q1 and Q2 journals indexed in the databases of Web of Science (WoS) and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) using keywords, such as “censorship.” The study employed the term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) analysis, Sentence-BERT embeddings, topic modeling, keyword network analysis, time-series analysis, and qualitative interpretation. Studies were categorized into four major thematic categories: (1) Intellectual freedom and technological control, (2) Intellectual freedom within specific institutional contexts, (3) General censorship and institutional responses, and (4) Theoretical foundations and institutionalization of intellectual freedom. In particular, topics such as the impact of technological advancements—including filtering, privacy, and artificial intelligence, increased censorship in correctional education settings, legal responses to censorship, and the intersection of intellectual freedom with equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have emerged as critical. Furthermore, this study highlights the need to expand intellectual freedom research beyond Western contexts.
AntelmanK (2023) Content warnings and censorship. Portal Libraries and the Academy23(3): 461–484.
5.
AudunsonRAabøSBlomgrenR, et al. (2019) Public libraries as an infrastructure for a sustainable public sphere: A comprehensive review of research. Journal of Documentation75(4): 773–790.
6.
AvuglahBOwusu-AnsahCTachie-DonkorG, et al. (2020) Privacy issues in libraries with online services: Attitudes and concerns of academic librarians and university students in Ghana. College & Research Libraries81(6): 997–1021.
7.
AyuningtyasAAIrhandayaningsihAGanggiRIP (2023) School library censorship: Looking at the perspective of a school librarian association in Indonesia. IFLA Journal49(3): 587–595.
8.
BleiDM (2012) Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM55(4): 77–84.
BossallerJSBuddJM (2015) What we talk about when we talk about free speech. Library Quarterly85(1): 26–44.
11.
BridgesLMMcElroyKWelhouseZ (2024) Generative artificial intelligence: 8 Critical questions for libraries. Journal of Library Administration64(1): 66–79.
12.
BushaCH (1972) Intellectual freedom and censorship: The climate of opinion in Midwestern public libraries. Library Quarterly42(3): 283–301.
13.
ByrneA (2022) A declaration for all seasons: The IFLA statement on libraries and intellectual freedom. IFLA Journal48(3): 373–382.
14.
ChenQLiuRJiangQ, et al. (2024) Exploring cross-cultural disparities in tourists’ perceived images: A text mining and sentiment analysis study using LDA and BERT-BILSTM models. Data Technologies and Applications58(4): 669–690.
15.
Clark HuntLKSteeleJEKoposkoJL, et al. (2023) E-resource librarians perceptions on library patron privacy. Journal of Academic Librarianship49(3): 102704.
16.
CohenHMinowM (2006) Intellectual freedom in libraries: Then and now. Advances in Librarianship30: 73–101.
17.
CurryA (2000) Collection management of gay/lesbian materials in the UK and Canada. Libri50(1): 14–25.
18.
DevlinJChangMWLeeK, et al. (2018) BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805
19.
FiskeM (1959) Book Selection and Censorship. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
20.
García-MarcoFJFiguerolaCGPintoM (2020) Assessment of the thematic evolution of library and information science (LIS) research in Spanish in the LISA database using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (1978–2019). Profesional de la Información29(4): e290427.
21.
GardnerGJ (2022) Intellectual freedom and alternative priorities in library and information science research: A longitudinal study. IFLA Journal48(3): 383–398.
GormanM (2015) Our Enduring Values Revisited: Librarianship in an Ever-Changing World. Chicago, IL: ALA.
24.
GreenlandK (2013) Negotiating self-presentation, identity, ethics, readership and privacy in the LIS blogosphere: A review of the literature. Australian Academic & Research Libraries44(4): 217–225.
25.
GreysonD (2007) GLBTQ content in comics/graphic novels for teens. Collection Building26(4): 130–134.
26.
GuptaSGulS (2024) Tracking the research trends in the library and information science: A case study of India. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication73(1/2): 202–218.
27.
Hartman-CaverlyS (2019) Human nature is not a machine: On liberty, attention engineering and learning analytics. Library Trends68(1): 24–53.
28.
HussainSTBatoolSHRehmanAU, et al. (2023) Examining the status of prison libraries around the world: A literature review. IFLA Journal49(1): 180–200.
Illinois Government (2023) Gov Pritzker signs bill making Illinois First State in the Nation to Outlaw Book Bans, Press release. Available at: https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.26575.html (accessed 23 March 2025).
31.
JaegerPTBertotJCMcClureCR (2004) The effects of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in public libraries and its implications for research: A statistical, policy, and legal analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology55(13): 1131–1139.
32.
JaegerPTYanZ (2009) One law with two outcomes: Comparing the implementation of CIPA in public libraries and schools. Information Technology and Libraries28(1): 6–14.
33.
JamaliHRShahbaztabarP (2017) The effects of internet filtering on users’ information-seeking behaviour and emotions. Aslib Journal of Information Management69(4): 408–425.
34.
JiFWuJChiclanaF, et al. (2025) Supporting group cruise decisions with online collective wisdom: An integrated approach combining review helpfulness analysis and consensus in social networks. Information Processing & Management62(1): 103936.
35.
JohanssonVLindhM (2023) Limited knowledge and informal lobbying: Internet regulation through content filters in Swedish public libraries. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society21(3): 243–258.
36.
JonesKML (2019) ‘Just because you can doesn’t mean you should’: Practitioner perceptions of learning analytics ethics. portal Libraries and the Academy19(3): 407–428.
37.
JoshiAKajaleAGadreJ, et al. (2023) L3Cube-MahaSBERT and HindSBERT: Sentence BERT models and benchmarking BERT sentence representations for Hindi and Marathi. In: AraiK (ed.) Intelligent Computing SAI 2023 Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 739. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.1184–1199.
38.
KnoxEJM (2014) Supporting intellectual freedom: Symbolic capital and practical philosophy in librarianship. Library Quarterly84(1): 8–21.
39.
KnoxEJMOltmannSM (2018) Social responsibility, librarianship, and the ALA: The 2015 Banned Books Week poster controversy. Library Quarterly88(1): 5–22.
40.
MagiTJ (2011) Fourteen reasons privacy matters: A multidisciplinary review of scholarly literature. Library Quarterly81(2): 187–209.
41.
MarquisM (2024) Banning self-empowerment: A case study on distribution of a creative writing guide to incarcerated persons in the US. Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy8(2): 21–29.
42.
MoodyK (2004) Censorship by Queensland public librarians: Philosophy and practice. Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services17(4): 168–185.
43.
MorrisMStevensGASiegelJ (2025) ‘I can’t even read straight’: Exploring the influences on LGBTQ+ library collections through an artificial-intelligence-mediated parallel-synthesis-scoping-review approach. IFLA Journal. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03400352241310614
44.
MuirASpaceyRCookeL, et al. (2016) Regulating internet access in UK public libraries: Legal compliance and ethical dilemmas. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society14(1): 87–104.
45.
Nichols HessALaPorte-FioriREngwallK (2015) Preserving patron privacy in the 21st century academic library. Journal of Academic Librarianship41(1): 105–114.
46.
OgbaOC (2017) Information ethics and the World Wide Web: Reviewing the norms showing the future. Journal of Information Ethics26(2): 72–83.
47.
OltmannSM (2016a) ‘For all the people’: Public library directors interpret intellectual freedom. Library Quarterly86(3): 290–312.
48.
OltmannSM (2016b) Intellectual freedom and freedom of speech: Three theoretical perspectives. Library Quarterly86(2): 153–171.
49.
OltmannSMKitzieVBarriageS (2023) “For me, it is an intellectual freedom issue”: Drag storytimes, neutrality, and ALA core values. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science55(3): 734–743.
50.
OwenU (2000) Gateways to freedom: Libraries and the new millennium. Libri50(1): 6–13.
RahamanSGovilPKhanD, et al. (2024) A 30-year bibliometric assessment and visualisation of emotion regulation research: Applying network analysis and cluster analysis. Information Discovery and Delivery52(1): 85–100.
53.
RavikumarSBoruahBBGayangFL (2025) Latent topics identification from the articles of Sri Lankan authors using LDA. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication74(1/2): 186–197.
54.
ReimersNGurevychI (2019) Sentence-BERT: Sentence embeddings using Siamese BERT-networks. In: Proceedings of the 2019 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pp.3982–3992. DOI: 10.18653/v1/D19-1410.
55.
RobbinsLS (1996) Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association’s Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom 1939–1969. Westport: Greenwood Press.
56.
RubelA (2014) Libraries, electronic resources, and privacy: The case for positive intellectual freedom. Library Quarterly84(2): 183–208.
57.
SaltonGBuckleyC (1988) Term-weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing & Management24(5): 513–523.
58.
SheraJH (1972) The Foundations of Education for Librarianship. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
59.
SimonVRabinNGalHC-B (2023) Utilizing data driven methods to identify gender bias in LinkedIn profiles. Information Processing & Management60(5): 103423.
60.
SmithC (2022) Automating intellectual freedom: Artificial intelligence, bias and the information landscape. IFLA Journal48(3): 422–431.
61.
SongH (2025) A case study of library intellectual freedom on newspaper big data since the 2000s. Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science59(1): 547–573.
62.
SpaceyRCookeLMuirA, et al. (2014) Regulating use of the internet in public libraries: A review. Journal of Documentation70(3): 478–497.
63.
SteeleJE (2020) Cases of censorship in public libraries: Loudoun County VA. Public Library Quarterly39(5): 434–456.
64.
TanakaKPokornowskiS (2024) Censorship, surveillance, and higher education in prisons. Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy8(2): 3–5.
65.
TaylorKMcMenemyD (2013) Censorship challenges to books in Scottish public libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science45(2): 153–167.
66.
TummonNMcKinnonD (2018) Attitudes and practices of Canadian academic librarians regarding library and online privacy: A national study. Library & Information Science Research40(2): 86–97.
67.
UK Government (1998) Human Rights Act 1998. London: The Stationery Office.
68.
VansAMSimskeSJ (2017) Identifying top performing TF*IDF classifiers using the CNN corpus. Archiving Conference. Society for Imaging Science and Technology14(1): 105–115.
69.
VelmuruganVS (2024) The changing role of libraries in the digital age of intellectual freedom International. Journal of Information Library and Society13(2): 11–15.
70.
YamagishiMKoizumiMLarsenH (2024) Evolving legitimacy of the public library in the 21st century. Journal of Documentation80(6): 1347–1366.
71.
YuanYYanti IdayaAMKNoorhidawatiA, et al. (2025) Trends and changes in academic libraries’ data management functions: A topic modeling analysis of job advertisements. Journal of Academic Librarianship51(2): 103017.
72.
YuLZhangY (2024) In search of a coherent theoretical foundation for LIS ethical principles: An appraisal of Floridi’s information ethics. Journal of Documentation80(4): 730–748.
73.
ZhangYLiHMaoJ, et al. (2023) COVID-19: A disruptive impact on the knowledge support of references. Scientometrics128(8): 4791–4823.
74.
ZhouYYangSLiY, et al. (2020) Does the review deserve more helpfulness when its title resembles the content? Locating helpful reviews by text mining. Information Processing & Management57(2): 102179.
