Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
ARTICLE
Younger adolescents’perspectives on book
censorship: a case of Croatia
Jelena Lakuš1,2 ✉, Ivana Martinović1,2 & Boris Badurina 1,2
This study explores the views of younger adolescents in Croatia regarding book censorship.
Censorship, defined as systematic control of freedom of thought and expression, has a long
history and continues to be relevant in modern times, targeting various age groups, parti-
cularly children and youth. The study explores historical and contemporary justifications for
censoring books for young people, emphasizing the belief that children need protection from
inappropriate content. This belief is rooted in the idea that children are intellectually and
emotionally different from adults, necessitating a separate and protected period of childhood.
The study involved a survey conducted among 62 seventh and eighth-grade students in
Osijek, Croatia. Findings revealed that many adolescents have a superficial understanding of
censorship, often associating it with the prohibition of offensive language. Despite this, over
half of the respondents admitted to reading books deemed inappropriate for their age. The
study highlights the need for further education on censorship and suggests that including
adolescents in discussions about reading materials could be beneficial, as their perspectives
often differ significantly from those of adults.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 OPEN
1Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia.
2
These authors contributed equally: Jelena Lakuš,
Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. ✉email: jlakus@ffos.hr
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 1
1234567890():,;
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Introduction
The idea of protecting children and youth from potentially
harmful content has been a longstanding concern
throughout history. In literature, there is no clear con-
sensus on whether such actions should be classified as censorship.
For some, it represents a violation of basic rights, that is, intel-
lectual freedom; for others, it may simply mean prioritizing one
book over another. Meanwhile, for those who prefer euphemisms
like “rating a book”or “restructuring the curriculum,”it is seen as
a way to shield children and youth from harmful or inappropriate
ideas (Lent, Pipkin, 2013, p. 20). The IFLA School Library
Guidelines, for instance, assert that librarians’duty is to carefully
select and organize relevant sources in their libraries. Rather than
acting as censors, they provide students with materials that
encourage exploration and innovation, thereby fostering the
development of their critical thinking and creativity (IFLA School
Library Guidelines, 2015).
When not specifically addressing the issue of children and
youth, it is generally accepted that book censorship, typically
defined as the systematic control of freedom of thought and
expression, and carried out by authorities, institution and indi-
viduals for various reasons –often religious, political, social, or
sexual (Karolides et al., (1999)) –is viewed in a negative light.
This systematic control can take various forms and aspects,
ranging from legal restrictions aimed at controlling the publica-
tion, distribution, or sale of specific books to acts of book burn-
ings, where books were destroyed to symbolize the destruction
and eradication of certain ideas (Stipčević,1994).
Censorship practices date back to ancient Greece where the
earliest known cases are recorded: in the 5th century BC, in Athens,
Protagoras’sbook“On the Gods,”which expressed agnostic views
that were considered controversial at the time, was publicly burned,
while in the 4th century BC Socrates faced the death sentence for
“corrupting the youth”of Athens and introducing ideas that
challenged traditional Athenian beliefs and values. In later histor-
ical periods, censorship became commonly associated with totali-
tarian regimes (Hrvatska enciklopedija, 2013. –2024.). Despite the
evolution of societal attitudes, censorship remains relevant in the
modern world as well. Commonly referenced cases in discussion
about challenged literature in the present era are certainly “Harry
Potter”series by J. K. Rowling, and “The Da Vinci Code”by Dan
Brown that both held a prominent place at the American Library
Association’slistof“challenged”books in the first decade of the
21th century (Karolides et al., (1999), p. 231).
Numerous efforts are made nowadays to avoid censorship by
establishing the rule of law and implementing international
agreements on freedom of expression as a fundamental human and
civil right (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 19, and the European Convention on Human Rights,
Article 10). Organization dedicated to fighting censorship, such as
International Centre for Combating Censorship, International
Freedom of Expression Exchange and similar entities also play a
vital role in this effort. Cases of violations of freedom of expression
worldwide are documented in the periodic publication such as
Index on Censorship (London, since 1972) (Proleksis enciklopedija
online, 2015). It is crucial to emphasize that censorship has con-
sistently targeted various age demographics, particularly children
and youth, recognized as the most vulnerable to diverse influences.
For this reason, the focus of this study is on younger adolescents
and their perspectives on the phenomenon of book censorship.
Exploring the origins and justification behind censorship of
books for children and younger adolescents
Since the times of Socrates, who, through questioning moral and
intellectual issues and encouraging critical thinking and the
pursuit of truth, paid with his life, adults have often believed that
children are intellectually, emotionally, socially, and physically
different from adults. To ensure the well-being and proper
development of children and youth, many argue that it is
necessary to isolate and protect them from certain knowledge and
activities typical of adults, which can have inappropriate influ-
ences on them. Despite their differences, all modern perspectives
on childhood share two common assumptions. First, children and
youth should be kept separate from adult life until they receive
certain level of education or until they reach maturity. Second,
adults have a responsibility to impart valuable knowledge to
children and youth. Consequently, the very concept of childhood
in modern history is closely linked to the care, training, and
conscious education of the child provided by responsible adults
(Scott MacLeod, 1983, p. 29). The idea of childhood as a separate
and, ideally, protected period of life has become so familiar that it
seems “natural,”perhaps even inherent to humans.
However, it is worth noting that such a view of childhood is
neither eternal nor universal. It has a historical beginning and
development and, like any other cultural attitude, is subject to
change (Scott MacLeod, 1983, p. 29). In practical terms, this
perspective leads to restricting and separating children and youth
from some aspects of society to which belong knowledge,
experience, and resources, among which are books as well (Scott
MacLeod, 1983, p. 30).
The idea of protecting children and youth from bad books is
one of the concerns that early appeared in European civilization.
The Greek philosopher Plato found enough reason to conclude
that the works of Homer and Hesiod could have a detrimental
educational effect on a young person. The Romans continued the
tradition, asserting that children and youth should be shielded
from harmful literature. In the 18th century, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau argue, in “Emile or On Education,”that children
should only be exposed to the truth and should not read any
books until the age of 12 (Hunt, 1997). The management
approach towards childhood reached its peak in the 19th century
and is closely linked to the entire development of specialized
literature for children. Ideally, though not always in practice,
parents in the 19th century regulated their children’s lives,
including their reading habits. This period also saw the emer-
gence of children’s books as a distinct genre (Scott MacLeod,
1983). Attitudes towards children and childhood undoubtedly
changed in the second half of the 20th century, just as attitudes
towards books and morals changed. However, current debates on
limiting children’s and younger adolescents’reading in magazines
and at various association meetings indicate that these changes
have not progress uniformly. Adults’attitudes towards children’s
books and childhood itself are a combination of personal, societal,
and sometimes political beliefs (Scott MacLeod, 1983). Histori-
cally, the production and distribution of children’s literature were
regulated by general printing laws and specialized laws aimed at
printing and distributing children’s and younger adolescents’
literature. For all of these reasons, children and younger adoles-
cents are frequently at the centre of discussions on censorship, as
society seeks to balance the protection of these individuals from
potential harm with the promotion of an environment that
encourages intellectual growth. Schools, as educational institu-
tions, seem to be one of the most responsible factors in shaping
children’s and younger adolescents’reading habits.
School libraries and selection of books
Intellectual freedom lies at the heart of both public and school
libraries, serving as a fundamental principle. According to the
Common Beliefs of the American Association of School
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
2HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Librarians, “learners have the freedom to speak and hear what
others have to say, rather than allowing others to control their
access to ideas and information; the school librarian’s responsi-
bility is to develop these dispositions in learners, educators, and
all other members of the learning community”(American
Association of School Librarians, 2024). Librarians in Croatia,
including school librarians, are guided by the same principles.
The Code of Ethics of the Croatian Library Association, which
provides guidelines for professional conduct for all those in the
library field, emphasizes values such as intellectual freedom or
user privacy. It also states that every library employee should be
guided in their work by the principle of “recognizing the right to
knowledge and unobstructed access to information for all”as well
as the principle of “availability of various types of materials and
sources for all user groups.”They should also particularly strive
for “equal access to information for all users regardless of their
personal characteristics, special needs, gender, nationality, reli-
gion, political affiliation, and social status”and to “oppose and
reject any form of censorship”(The Code of Ethics of the
Croatian Library Association, 2023). All of the above is in
accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia,
which clearly states that censorship is prohibited (Constitution of
the Republic of Croatia, 1998).
The idea of selecting book for children and adolescents based
on their suitability from the moral point of view has been
embedded in library services for children from the very begin-
ning. As early as the late 19th century, when the doors of public
libraries were closed to children, librarians emphasized that those
children exposed to quality, inspiring literature would grow into
quality, inspired adults. Some librarians, such as Betsy Hearne, a
highly respected scholar in the field of children’s literature and
librarianship, describe the work of pioneering children’s library
services as a visionary quest in which “the holy grail was not just
information or even knowledge, but the enrichment of experience
through comprehensive reading, a type of reading that captures
the heart while simultaneously engaging the mind and ultimately
shaping life”(as cited in Walter, 2001, p. 2). At the same time, in
official documents relevant to the work of children’s libraries, it is
stated that library collections and digital content must reflect
diversity of viewpoints, values, and opinions. Achieving diversity
in available materials requires offering materials that demonstrate
inclusivity, including various gender and racial identities, abilities,
socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and family composi-
tions (IFLA, 2018). It is possible to question whether it is feasible
on one hand to offer everything that is available, while simulta-
neously meeting criteria for appropriateness on all levels crucial
to a child’s development, i.e. the formation of a young person.
State and religious authorities consider libraries to be an
appropriate place to prevent children and youth from accessing
undesirable books that could lead them astray. Although libraries
do not independently make decisions to remove books from their
collections, the state can impose such obligations. Decisions to
remove books are often based on an assessment of their impact
on readers, especially children and youth. Libraries strive to
ensure that their collections are diverse but also socially respon-
sible. Julia Briggs, an English writer and scholar, claims that by
ignoring and succumbing to personal prejudices, we make chil-
dren and youth particularly susceptible to external influences.
Arguing that they need protection from inappropriate or harmful
material can justify censorship on various grounds (Briggs, as
cited in Mehta, 2023). Therefore, although selection may involve
a certain form of content filtering or restriction, the difference lies
in the fact that selection is usually not motivated by political or
ideological goals, as is often the case with censorship. Selection is
typically carried out with the aim of improving access to relevant
or useful information, while censorship is often motivated by a
desire to control or prevent access to certain ideas or viewpoints
(Freedman et al., 2000).
Banning and challenging books for children and youth in
schools and school libraries
The presence of censorship of books for children and youth is a
common occurrence. In Croatia, there have been repeated
attempts to remove books from reading lists that, for various
reasons, are considered unsuitable. For example, in 2016, the
association “In the Name of the Family”
1
submitted objections
and proposals regarding the Draft Proposal of the Croatian
Language Curriculum. They demanded a thorough revision of the
reading list and the removal of books considered detrimental to
the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual health of pupils. These
objections also aimed to eliminate books unsuitable for reasons
such as thematic, content, and linguistic concerns, including
references to perversions, pornography, paedophilia, vampirism,
cannibalism, and vulgar language. Furthermore, they argued that
selected works should align with the principle of adapting to
pupils’age, cultural background, and life experience, essential for
curriculum selection. Additionally, they criticized books con-
taining vulgarisms that violate commonly accepted aesthetic
standards and fail to respect decency and tone in teaching. The
objections also addressed concerns about materials potentially
encouraging unhealthy behaviours or promoting addiction to
pornography, instead of fostering a desire to read classics and
broaden cognitive horizons, which is crucial for the educational
dimension of school and Croatian language teaching (U ime
obitelji, 2016).
Although involving children and their families in the process of
selecting materials is desirable and necessary, it can also present a
problem that parents may impose on libraries because they
believe they know best what is good for their children and closely
monitor current publications in children’s literature. While few
would oppose parents’right to determine what is acceptable for
their children, the question of selecting content for all children
and youth is still controversial (Freedman et al., 2000). In the
United States, banning books for adults, as well as for children
and youth, is widespread. In the 2022/2023 school year, according
to PEN America’s Index of School Book Bans (2023), 1477 books,
or 874 unique titles, were banned, which is 28% more than in the
first half of 2022. Before a book is banned, it is usually challenged,
often by parents, social/political groups, or school boards, and the
challenger presents their reasons why the book is inadequate or
inappropriate for the school, providing reasonable grounds for
complete banning or restriction (Hennen, 2024). When a member
of the community requests for material to be restricted or
removed, labelling it as “offensive”or “inappropriate,”this is
commonly referred to as a challenge (Hull, 2022). According to
the American Library Association in 2023, 4240 unique titles of
books were challenged in schools and school libraries (American
Library Association, 2023). Challengers often argue that books
should contain good or true ideas because, in many ways, books
reify information in the text they contain. That is, ideas found in
books are considered true because books contain true ideas.
Therefore, according to this circular logic, if ideas in books are
not true, then those ideas should not be contained in the book,
and the book itself should be removed so that its ideas do not
become true. Books that fail to fulfil their role are called trash
(Knox, 2020). The results of a study conducted by Rumberger
(2019) show that despite democratic principles, the school library
often becomes a space where children and youth have limited
access to both reading content and literacy practices considered
undesirable, while at the same time the American Library Asso-
ciation establishes that many of the most banned and challenged
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
literary works are often necessary in the educational process due
to their educational value (Hennen, 2024). When teachers
abandon their right and responsibility to select literature, they
sacrifice their students to protect themselves (Freedman et al.,
2000). Research by Oltmann (2018) has shown that school
librarians often encounter difficulties and must carefully balance
and strive to reconcile the promotion of intellectual freedom on
the one hand and the protection of students on the other. It is also
emphasized that there are differences among school librarians in
assessing what they consider appropriate content for their
young users.
Updating the list of banned books in the 2022–2023 school
year by the American Library Association shows an expansion of
the topics that are censored, focusing on race, history, sexual
orientation, and gender. Reasons for banning include books that
promote or encourage racism towards one or more groups of
people, promote harmful lifestyles, contain blasphemous speech,
depict violence, witchcraft, sexual situations and conversations,
unpopular religions, political bias, etc. Although content invol-
ving sex, cursing, or religious views may prompt challengers, the
primary motivations for censorship attempts are often more
complex. Cain (2005, p. 7) notes that “some censors have a low
tolerance for diversity, ambiguity, and conflict, seeing these things
as a threat to order and stability.”Often, censors assume that
protecting students from certain topics will prevent undesirable
behaviour. However, it has been shown that many adolescents
actually hesitate to read young adult literature with controversial
content. Therefore, it is possible to question the justification of
such a censor’s stance. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that
while many adults would ban content that includes swearing and
sexual elements, adolescents would more often ban violence,
indicating their ability to critically judge literary works (Enriquez,
2006). They are not just passive recipients who imitate the
behaviour of characters in young adult literature, but active
participants in the process of evaluating works and self-education.
This is supported by the fact that no student was solely attracted
to a work because of its controversial content (Enriquez, 2006).
Furthermore, since adolescence is a time of exploring boundaries
and developing individual identity, including the voices of ado-
lescents in the assessment of young adult literature encourages
critical thinking necessary for their transition to adulthood
(Enriquez, 2006). In this context, some research suggests that
controversial topics can also play a role, as they capture children’s
interest and foster curiosity within them (Isajlovic-Terry,
McKechnie, 2012). Responses from both children and adult
experts indicate a paradox that arises from the act of restricting
access to certain materials. Materials are restricted to prevent
children from reading, watching, or listening to them but these
restrictions ultimately stimulate children’s curiosity and desire for
restricted material (Isajlovic-Terry, McKechnie, 2012).
The opinions of parents, teachers, and politicians are con-
stantly present in discussions and controversies over book bans
but the opinions of children and youth are often neglected, or not
even considered, even though these bans directly affect their
education. Given that young people are particularly affected by
exposure to such texts, it is crucial to understand their definitions
of controversial topics, topics they deem inappropriate for the
school environment, how much exposure they consider excessive,
and overall how much they value literature (Enriquez, 2006).
There has been a wide range of literature on that subject, parti-
cularly on censorship in school libraries and children/adolescents,
as the age group most susceptible to varying influences (Harts-
field, Kimmel 2020,2021; McNicol, 2016; Garry, 2015; Town,
2014 etc.). Most of this literature, however, shows adults’per-
spectives. The viewpoints of children or youth are little known
(Isajlovic-Terry, McKechnie, 2012). Current researches suggest
that young people indeed understand that in their own assess-
ment of works, they should take into account the expectations of
adults, peer reactions, and individual interests. Additionally,
previous research has shown that the criteria of young people and
adults for assessing what is (all) important in a particular literary
work often differ significantly. Young people want their voices to
be heard when creating curricula and reading materials
(Enriquez, 2006; Hennen, 2024).
The intention of this research is to deepen our understanding
of younger adolescents’perspectives on book censorship. The
research is crucial because existing literature do not provide
sufficient information about how young people perceive this
topic. Understanding their attitudes and experiences can help
shape better policies and practices that support freedom of
expression while also ensuring that their interests and needs are
considered. This research will allow us to hear their voices,
identify any shortcomings in current approaches, and provide a
basis for developing more inclusive strategies that promote
diversity of thought and respect for individual rights.
Research methodology and research questions
More precisely, the aim of this study is to explore the knowledge,
interests, experiences, and perspectives of younger adolescents
regarding book censorship. Following the World Health Orga-
nization’sdefinition of adolescents, which considers individuals
between the ages of 10 and 19 as adolescents (WHO, 2024), we
refer to our respondents that were aged 13 to 15 years, as younger
adolescents.
2
In pursuit of the objective, a survey as chosen
research method was employed. The survey took place among
elementary school students in the seventh and eighth grades at a
single school in Osijek, Croatia, in the year 2021. There were 33
questions, divided into five categories: 1) Demographic infor-
mation, 2) General reading habits, 3) Knowledge of censorship, 4)
Experience of reading inappropriate content, and 5) Attitudes
towards censorship (Appendix 1).
Sixty-two respondents, comprising 30 (48.4%) girls and 32
(51.6%) boys, completed the online questionnaire. The majority
of respondents (38 of them, or 61.3%) were 14 years old, 13 of
them (30.6%) were 13 years old, and only eight of them (8.1%)
were 15 years old at the time they filled out the questionnaire.
The specific research questions are as follows:
1. What is the extent of knowledge regarding censorship
among younger adolescents?
2. What is the level of interest in the subject of censorship
among younger adolescents?
3. What experiences do younger adolescents have with
reading inappropriate books?
4. What are the perspectives of younger adolescents on book
censorship?
Results
Younger adolescents’knowledge about forbidden books and
book censorship in general. Over a third of the respondents
(37.1%) are unfamiliar with the term “censorship”–they have
never heard anything about it. Those acquainted with the term
primarily learned about it through the Internet (30.6%), followed
by school (24.2%) and TV (22.6%). Some heard about censorship
at home (16.1%), but only a very small percentage learned about
it in the library (4.8%) (Fig. 1).
Respondents who are acquainted with the term also attempted
to define and explain it. Responses gathered included expressions
such as “I’ve encountered this term multiple times, but I’ve never
quite understood what it means,”“The term sounds familiar to
me, but I’m not quite sure what it is –probably a prohibition of
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
4HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
something,”or “It has to do with something forbidden,”and “It
involves forbidding something or hiding inappropriate content.”
When employing the term “inappropriate,”survey participants
tend to associate it predominantly with offensive language, which
aligns with the accepted definition of the term, typically referring
to something considered socially unacceptable and offensive
while emphasizing the moral or ethical aspects of certain acts or
situations, (Collins Online Dictionary, 2024). Responses of this
kind are as follows: “Censorship is the removal of ‘bad words’,”
”Censorship is when a word is replaced with another or omitted
from a sentence,”or “Censorship is covering inappropriate words
and things”. It must be emphasized, however, that they use the
term “inappropriate”interchangeably with “unsuitable,”defined
by dictionaries as something not appropriate for a particular
person, situation, or occasion (Cambridge Dictionary, 2024),
which can also extend to considerations of age.
Only occasionally did respondents associate the words
“inappropriate”and/or “unsuitable”with scary and violent
content. This association commonly arises when survey
participants were questioned about the importance of avoiding
exposure to content intended for adults until they attain a level
of cognitive and emotional development deemed satisfactory
for such consumption. Responses like these have been
identified: “Yes, I think that before the age of 16, one should
not read about violence, for instance, because it is not really
suitable for children and youth and can have a negative impact
on them,”or “Ithinkthatweshouldn’t read about certain
topics at a younger age, such as, for example, topics related to
violence.”Interestingly, the words “inappropriate”and/or
“unsuitable”associated with sexually explicit content or
language were very rarely encountered. Responses such
“Censorship is when a book is labelled as 18+and contains
content and/or images unsuitable for children”or “Censorship
is covering explicit content,“appeared very seldom. Further-
more, findings indicate that some of them perceive “inap-
propriate”and/or “unsuitable”as those that are challenging for
them to comprehend and, consequently, not suitable for their
age. Occasionally, they categorized even school-required read-
ing books within the realm of “inappropriate”content. For
example, when asked if they have ever encountered an
unsuitable book and whether they continued reading it, the
majority (74.2%) of them responded positively, with a few
mentioning that it was part of their required reading.
While answering the question whether ruling authorities,
teachers, parents, or other adults should prohibit children and
youth from reading a book they deem harmful, one respondent
claimed that a more liberal or controversial book should be
included in the school’s required reading list at least once a year
for the purpose of allowing children and youth to learn from it.
For him, books labelled as “harmful”are synonymous with both
“liberal”and “controversial”books.
Furthermore, the concept of censorship was more frequently
placed in a contemporary context rather than in a historical one.
Only one respondent associated censorship with a historical
example –the era of the Croatian national revival in the first half
of the 19th century, when, during Chancellor Metternich’s era,
freedom of the press was abolished.
In addition, almost no one gives the term political implications,
but only moral or ethical. The definition of censorship as “the
removal of bad words and certain political ideas from books”is
essentially almost the only interpretation that adds a somewhat
political dimension to the term. Finally, the respondents very
rarely associate the censorship issue with freedom of thought and
expression. Only one or two of them provided the definition of
censorship, as “it is when authorities restrict freedom of
expression.”
Over 95% of respondents were unable to name a single banned
book. When asked about forbidden children’soryouthbooks
specifically, the percentage of those who were unable to name it was
even higher –45.2% of respondents never heard of any forbidden
books, while 53.2% were unsure, in total, 98.4%. Only 1.6% of them
were familiar with an example of a forbidden children’soryouth
book (Fig. 2). They rarely mentioned the specific titles. However,
one respondent noted the famous “Anne Frank’sDiary,”a classic of
war literature. The other one mentioned a book on the Armenian
genocide without specifying the title.
Among the ten forbidden titles of children’s books offered in the
survey, only 19.4% of respondents, for instance, were aware that
“Harry Potter”had been challenged in some countries. The
percentage of those who were familiar with other banned children’s
books, like “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,”“Alice’s Adventures
in Wonderland,”“Cinderella,”“Pippi Longstocking,”“Heidi,”or
“Winnie the Pooh”was even lower (Table 1). The percentage of
those who never heard that these books were banned at some point
in history ranged from around 60% to nearly 90%, while the
percentage of those who were not entirely sure about that ranged
from around 10% to slightly over 30%. The respondents did not
even know that some Croatian titles (for instance, “Šegrt Hlapić,”
“Ježeva kućica,”or “Bum Tomica”), typically part of the school
reading requirement, had been banned in the past.
Younger adolescents’interest in censorship. In response to the
question of whether they would like to explore censorship further
and, if so, what their preferred information channels would be, it
was revealed that as much as 37.1% of them were unwilling to
learn more about it. As expected, the media (54.8%), including
Fig. 2 The figure presents the ability of younger adolescents to name
forbidden children’s and younger adolescents’book titles.
Fig. 1 The figure presents various channels through which censorship
knowledge is obtained.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 5
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
TV, radio, or the Internet, emerged as the preferred source of
information about censorship. Other preferred sources included
meeting classes in schools (35.5%), educational workshops
(33.9%), and Croatian language classes (32.3%). Surprisingly, only
24.2% of them considered the history class to be the appropriate
setting for learning more about book censorship (Fig. 3).
When asked about their opinion on the coverage of the issue
of censorship in school, only 21% of the respondents affirmed
that book censorship is adequately addressed in school,
suggesting there might be no need to delve deeper into the
topic. Over half of the respondents (51.6%) claimed that the
school curriculum has inadequately addressed the subject of
book censorship. Finally, 27.4% of respondents expressed
uncertainty on the matter (Fig. 4).
Younger adolescents’experience of reading inappropriate books.
Over half of the survey participants (54.8%) admitted to occa-
sionally reading books that are unsuitable for their age due to their
content (Fig. 5).
These results, however, do not align with the findings from the
question regarding the decisions made when encountering a book
unsuitable for their age. Specifically, 25.8% of survey participants
stated that they discontinued reading a book of inappropriate
content, primarily due to recognizing its unsuitability for their
age. The remaining respondents, constituting the substantial
majority (74.2%), continued reading an age-inappropriate book
despite being aware of its unsuitability (Fig. 6).
They listed several reasons. The most common one was finding
a book interesting and being curious about its end. For instance,
one respondent mentioned that he continued reading a horror
novel Dracula
3
because it was very interesting, despite finding it
“disgusting.”However, they actually rarely mentioned specific
titles like that one. Additionally, several other reasons can be
cited. These include preferring to complete a book once started,
intending to read it for re-reading later to assess personal
progress, assuming that they will be able to fully understand the
content of the book, or having a firm conviction that no book
contains inappropriate material. As one participant stated, “I
think there is no inappropriate content because we will encounter
everything –good or bad –sooner or later in life, and I believe we
Table 1 The table presents the extent to which participants are familiar with certain forbidden titles of children’s and younger
adolescents’books.
Forbidden titles of children’s books Yes, I know. I am not sure. I do not know.
Harry Potter by J. K. Rowling 19.4% 17.7% 62.9%
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain 11.3% 6.5% 82.3%
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol 11.3% 16.1% 72.6%
Cinderella 11.3% 27.4% 61.3%
Apprentice Hlapić(Šegrt Hlapić)byIvanaBrlić-Mažuranić8.1% 27.4% 64.5%
Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren 6.5% 30.6% 62.9%
Heidi by Johanne Spyri 4.8% 16.1% 79.0%
Winnie-the-Pooh by A. A. Milne 4.8% 32.3% 62.9%
Hedgehog’s Home (Ježeva kućica) by Branko Ćopić3.2% 32.3% 64.5%
Bum Tomica by Silvija Šesto 0.0% 11.3% 88.7%
Fig. 3 The figure presents younger adolescents’preferred information
channels about censorship.
Fig. 4 The figure presents youngers adolescents’opinion on the coverage of
the issue of censorship in school.
Fig. 5 The figure presents findings about younger adolescents’reading age-
inappropriate books.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
6HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
need to know what is happening in the real world, which is not
just a fairy tale.”One survey participant also wrote that, even
though he knew it was not suitable for his age, he still read it
because it intrigued him, and he thought he would start thinking
differently after it. Furthermore, someone explicitly expressed, “I
don’t mind if there are bad words or actions,”displaying his
general indifference towards bans and censorship. Finally, several
respondents answered that they had to read it due to its inclusion
in the required reading for school.
When asked whether they had ever been prevented from
reading an inappropriate book, 53 out of 62 respondents
responded negatively. The most common reasons were that they
typically read books suitable for their age or inherited books from
their older siblings, likely already approved by their parents.
Others added that they are well aware of the distinctions among
books for children, books for youth, and books for adults, and
therefore, there is no need to prevent them from reading age-
inappropriate books. Some of them claimed that their parents
usually do not pay attention to what they read or that they rarely
read books, except for required reading.
Only nine respondents answered positively to the question
of whether someone had restricted their access to a book due to
its unsuitability for their age, explaining that it was primarily
their parents, with librarians intervening only occasionally.
Very rarely did they mention specific book titles that they were
restricted from reading. We only encountered examples such
as “Harry Potter”or Christiane F’sautobiography“Zoo
Station: The Story of Christiane F.”More often, general
descriptors or qualifications for age-inappropriate books were
provided, such as “horrified books,”“books with an image of a
skull on the book cover,”“books for adults,”or “books with too
many pages.”Almost all of them provided reasons why their
parentsorlibrarianshadlimitedtheiraccesstoaparticular
book. One reason is that they are too young to comprehend its
content, as seen in the following example: “My parents forbid
me from reading the books they read because they believe I
wouldn’tunderstandthematthisage. However, they always
emphasize that they would like me to read them in a few
years.”The same reason can be identified in this example: “I
wanted to borrow the book ‘Nikki’sDiary’
4
from the library,
but the librarian didn’t allow it because she thought I wasn’t
old enough for it. After a few years, I read it and realized that
the librarian was right after all.”Another reason is that the
book is too long for their current reading level, as suggested by
one survey participant: “The librarian told me that I shouldn’t
borrow books with many pagesabouttheFirstBalkanWar
because I am ‘too young’.”
Younger adolescents’attitude towards book censorship. The
significant majority –42 out of 62 respondents –considered book
censorship acceptable, providing very similar reasons to justify
their viewpoint. Some justifications included the assertion that
certain books have the potential to exert a negative influence on
readers, particularly the young ones. Advocates claim that not
every book is deemed suitable for children, especially those below
the age of 12. They argued that implementation of book cen-
sorship serves as a protective measure, shielding individuals,
principally children and young people, from various dangers. The
content deemed unacceptable for children includes primarily
“bad”language, but also themes related to violence, “brutal”
scenarios, murders, suicides, and the like.
A minority of respondents –15 out of 62 –argued against the
justification of censorship, citing various reasons. Some of them
stated that the book would not be interesting if it were not at least
a bit inappropriate. Others asserted that books deemed
inappropriate are actually the ones providing a realistic depiction
of the world and questioned the need to remove inappropriate
words or deeds from books, pointing out that such elements are
widespread in the real world. Only a few among these 15
respondents advocated for unrestricted freedom of expression
and the ability to read about any topic, “no matter how ‘dark’it
is,”and some asserted that implementing censorship is not
justified because “nothing should be hidden from people, even if
they are children.”Finally, only five respondents were unable to
take a side, stating they were unsure how to respond to the
question.
In addition to inquiring about the opinions of younger
adolescents regarding the justification of censorship in general,
another aspect addressed was whether ruling authorities, teachers,
parents, or other adults should prohibit children and youth from
reading a book they consider harmful for some reason(s).
Although the vast majority of survey participants –53 out of
62 –stated that no one ever stopped them from reading an
inappropriate book for their age, interestingly, more than half of
them –35 out of 62 respondents –agreed that the adults have the
authority to forbid children from reading such books. They
provided diverse justifications but, in general, these reasons can
be broadly categorized into two main ideas. The first involves the
claim that inappropriate content such as themes about murders
or “really harmful”topics can harm children, while the second
asserts that such content is difficult for youngsters to understand.
In general, they argue that childhood is not an appropriate age for
the consumption of such kinds of books. It is important to
emphasize that if they specified who is responsible for determin-
ing what children read, they asserted that it is the parents, and not
anyone else. One respondent formulated it as follows: “Only
parents are responsible for what their children read, and after the
age of 16, no one.”
A minority of respondents –only 19 out of 62 –expressed a
negative view regarding the question posed above. In general,
they argued that no one has the right to forbid children from
reading inappropriate books, using very similar reasoning.
Through reading various books, they claimed, children can
acquire knowledge about the world around them. Moreover, as
stated in some responses, it is better to learn from books about
certain dangers of the world they live in, whether it be violence or
some addiction, than to experience them first-hand in real life. As
one person expressed, “reading ‘harmful’books allows us to learn
from the mistakes of others,”referring to book characters, and
can actually discourage them from engaging in such behaviours.
Furthermore, some of them assert that the diverse opinions and
attitudes presented in books can help children in cultivating their
own comprehension of life and the world. Youngsters cannot
develop their attitude on any topic, they emphasized, unless they
Fig. 6 The figure presents younger adolescents’decision on reading age-
inappropriate books.
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
are exposed to its different perspectives. Additionally, someone
expressed the view that when a book is prohibited, there is a high
probability it will be read secretly, rendering the prohibition
senseless. It is preferable for parents to be aware of what their
children are reading, even if they consider it inappropriate, rather
than the children secretly engage with such literature without
parental knowledge. Furthermore, one advocate of unrestricted
reading, without interference from ruling authorities, parents,
teachers, or any other adults, emphasized that parents should be
pleased if their children read any book, regardless of its content.
Finally, eight of the respondents did not have an opinion on the
issue posed above, clearly stating so.
In response to the question about whether children up to a
certain age should avoid reading inappropriate topics, the majority
–48 out of 62 respondents –agreed with the idea, consistent with
their earlier support for the justification of censorship. They
typically regarded inappropriate content, as previously indicated, to
encompass vulgarity and offensive language, depictions of violence
or murder, “serious”or “genuinely disgusting”subjects, “grotesque,”
or “too intimate”themes. They claimed that limitations are justified,
citing as the most crucial reason that children lack necessary
emotional maturity to engage with a broad spectrum of topics,
suggesting that exposure to such content may induce emotional
trauma and badly affect their psychological development. Moreover,
they maintained that children should gradually acquire knowledge
about certain topics as they mature since immediate comprehension
might be beyond their reach. One survey participant stated that not
all subjects are suitable for children, and that is why he appreciates
the school compulsory reading list because it adheres to age-
appropriate content. Unlike some others, he discerned no elements
of inappropriateness within the compulsory reading list mandated
by the school. Another participant suggested that children should
not be burdened with “weighty”topics, but should instead enjoy
theirchildhoodforaslongaspossible.Theappropriateagetostart
reading such topics, according to those who mentioned it, is mostly
13 or 14 years old, and rarely, 16 years old.
Very few respondents –11 out of 62 of them –think that
children can read whatever they want, seldom offering arguments
to support their viewpoint. When providing an argument, their
most common claim is that children should be exposed to a
diverse range of topics, judging that all themes are appropriate for
children. Only one participant admitted that he enjoys reading
books intended for adults, stating that they are more interesting.
The other one expressed a nonchalant attitude about under-
standing the content of the book, stating, “If I understand the
content, great! If not, it’s not a problem for me.”Finally, only
three respondents were unsure how to answer the question
whether children up to a certain age should avoid reading
inappropriate topics.
The attitudes of younger adolescents towards censorship can
also be discerned through their opinions on whether the
prohibition of a specific book holds the potential to attract
readers. While a limited number of survey respondents refrained
from providing a conclusive response, suggesting that the
effectiveness of censorship may vary for different individuals,
the vast majority of respondents –54 out of 62 –replied
affirmatively supporting their viewpoint with the thesis that
humans, in general, are curious beings. Most people will select a
book precisely because it is forbidden, driven by the desire to
comprehend the rationale behind its restriction.
However, their attitudes towards the effectiveness of censorship
were unevenly distributed. The assertion that the prohibition of a
certain book would result in its non-consumption was supported
by 23 survey participants, while 22 participants believed that
prohibition is ineffective and counterproductive. A number of
participants –12 of them –were uncertain, claiming that
censorship might be effective or ineffective, depending on the
individual’s age, context, or specific content being censored.
Discussion
As mentioned earlier, four research questions have been formulated
to guide the investigation. The first question pertained to the
knowledge of censorship among younger adolescents. Overall,
findings suggest an insufficiency in the participants’comprehension
of the concept of censorship, along with a limited awareness of
prohibited books. Their understanding of the term is characterized
by a superficial, modest and blurred comprehension. Their percep-
tion is linked to concepts of “inappropriateness”or “prohibition,”yet
their grasp of its exact meaning remains somewhat unclear. The
constrained and vague conceptualization of the term “censorship”is
further manifested in their occasional categorization of even school-
required reading books within the domain of “inappropriate”and/or
“unsuitable”content. Additionally, this limited understanding is
exemplified when they predominantly associate the term “inap-
propriate”with language deemed offensive, occasionally extending it
to include violence and similar concepts. Furthermore, it has come
to attention that respondents more frequently place the notion of
censorship within a contemporary framework rather than a histor-
ical one. A notable observation is also the limited attribution of
political implications to the term, with emphasis placed pre-
dominantly on moral or ethical dimensions. Lastly, respondents
exhibit infrequent associations of the censorship issue with the
broader context of freedom of thought and expression. We may
therefore conclude that their perspectives on censorship are not only
superficial but also narrowly focused, viewing censorship primarily
as a matter of everyday moral judgments rather than considering its
political, civic, or philosophical implications.
Second research question addressed the interest of younger
adolescents in the issue of censorship. The research has suggested
that younger adolescents’level of interest in the subject is not as
extensive as one might anticipate, though it does exist. The pre-
ferred source of information about censorship for younger ado-
lescents is the media, encompassing TV, radio, or the Internet.
Surprisingly, a relatively small percentage of them considers the
history class as an appropriate setting for acquiring knowledge
about book censorship. This observation aligns with the earlier
finding that respondents seldom perceive censorship as a his-
torical phenomenon.
The third inquiry concerned the first-hand experiences of
younger adolescents in engaging with literature deemed inap-
propriate and/or unsuitable. The findings indicate that survey
participants possess considerable familiarity with reading books
classified inappropriate and/or unsuitable. Over half of them
admitted to occasionally reading books unsuitable for their age,
primarily driven by curiosity or the belief that books offer a way
to become familiar with the real world. Interestingly enough,
when queried about the decisions made when encountering books
unsuitable for their age, the percentage of those who proceeded to
read age-inappropriate books rises to nearly 75%. The dis-
crepancies in the results may be attributed to the fact that some
respondents associated “inappropriate”features with school-
required reading books, which they sometimes found difficult to
understand, or with too many pages, and, consequently, deemed
“unsuitable”. Most survey participants did not experience pre-
vention from reading inappropriate books, typically because they
chose books suitable for their age, being well aware of the dif-
ferences among books for various age groups. Alternatively, some
inherited books from their older siblings, which were already
approved by their parents. Among those who did experience
prevention from reading inappropriate books, reasons cited are
infrequent but included being too young to comprehend the
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
8HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
content, or finding a book too long for their current reading level.
Parents and librarians are those who most often guide their
reading habits by steering them away from books they still find
unsuitable for their age.
Last but certainly not least was the inquiry regarding their atti-
tude toward censorship. The overwhelming majority of survey
participants possessed a well-defined stance on their general atti-
tude towards censorship, with only a minority expressing uncer-
tainty in articulating their perspective. Significantly, the majority
respondents claimed book censorship acceptable, particularly
endorsing it for individuals aged below 12. It is crucial to highlight
that the respondents, primarily composed of individuals aged
thirteen and fourteen, surpassed the specified age limit. Conse-
quently, it can be inferred that while they considered censorship
measures acceptable, stating that an exposure to such content may
induce emotional trauma and badly affect psychological develop-
ment of children and youth, they advocated against their imposi-
tion upon themselves, asserting their maturity to choose reading
materials freely. According to most of survey participants, the
appropriate age to start reading diverse topics is therefore thirteen
or fourteen, only rarely sixteen. This distinction highlights a
developmental perspective on censorship, where protection is
prioritized at younger ages, but autonomy in content selection is
valued as they approach adolescence. Furthermore, among parti-
cipants who supported the concept of censorship, only some
approached the matter with greater severity and scrutiny, situating
it within the context of freedom of thought. Others opposed cen-
sorship because they perceive a book lacking inappropriate ele-
ments as uninteresting, boring, and devoid of real-world relevance.
Although the majority of respondents, as mentioned earlier, stated
that they have never been restricted from reading age-inappropriate
books, it is noteworthy that more than half believe that adults,
primarily parents, have that right to impose such restrictions. This
suggests that censorship is perceived as an adult responsibility.
Others asserted that through the consumption of such literature,
children ought to acquire an understanding of potential threats in
the world. Alternatively, some argued that exposure to diverse opi-
nions and themes contributes to the development of their individual
comprehension of the world. It is interesting, however, that despite
the support for censorship, particularly for children and youth, the
majority of survey participants asserted that the prohibition of a
specific book could paradoxically attract readers, reflecting aware-
ness that censorship can sometimes be counterproductive.
Although the results are significant as they reflect the knowl-
edge, experience, and attitudes of younger adolescents about
censorship, the small sample size of only 62 respondents has
limited the ability to draw more general conclusions. A larger
sample would certainly contribute to a deeper understanding of
the discussed issue. The difficulty was also the fact that the
respondents had trouble understanding the concept of censor-
ship, which likely affected the results as well. Furthermore, the
lack of similar studies on the attitudes of children and young
people towards censorship hindered the use of comparative
research methods. However, this can also be seen as an advantage,
as the results of this study have created a foundation for future
research on this important issue.
Conclusion and implementation of research results in
practice
This study delves into the perspectives of younger adolescents in
Croatia regarding book censorship. The findings underscore several
points that contribute to the ongoing debate on the role and impact
of censorship in educational and developmental contexts.
Firstly, it is evident that there is a pressing need for further edu-
cation and awareness-building regarding both the concept of
censorship and the broader principles of freedom of thought,
expression, and reading among younger individuals. The study
reveals that many adolescents have a superficial understanding of
censorship, often associating it primarily with the prohibition of
offensive language rather than recognizing its historical, political, and
ethical dimensions. This limited comprehension suggests that edu-
cational curricula should incorporate comprehensive discussions on
censorship, including its implications for democracy and individual
rights, to foster a more informed and critical youth population.
Moreover, the study highlights that engagement with potentially
banned or inappropriate literature among adolescents exists, mostly
driven by curiosity and a desire to explore adult themes. This
indicates a natural inclination towards challenging the boundaries
set by censorship, which might be seen as an essential part of
adolescent development. Adolescents are not just passive recipients
of content but are actively forming their judgments and opinions,
which could be stifled by overly restrictive censorship practices.
This engagement also suggests that while adolescents may
recognize the authority of adults to restrict access to certain content,
they also see value in exploring these materials themselves. This
dual perspective could reflect a transition phase in their develop-
ment, where they are starting to question adult authority and form
theirownviewsaboutwhatisappropriateforthemtoreadand
learn. It also suggests that including them in decision making
process regarding school’s required reading list could be beneficial.
Furthermore, the responses from the adolescents suggest a link
between the act of censorship and increased curiosity about the
banned content. This might indicate that attempts to shield young
people from certain topics can backfire, leading them to seek out
these materials even more earnestly. Such an outcome not only
undermines the intended protective measures but also highlights
the counterproductive nature of some censorship efforts, which can
inadvertently make forbidden content more appealing.
The study also points to a broader societal challenge: balancing
the protection of young minds with the need to foster intellectual
independence. Adolescents clearly benefit from exposure to
diverse viewpoints and complex topics, which can aid in their
cognitive and moral development. Therefore, it is essential for
educators, librarians, and parents to consider these benefits when
making decisions about access to literature.
Lastly, the opinions and attitudes of young adolescents towards
certain topics and content differ significantly from those of adults.
Adults often do not realize these differences, which can lead to
misunderstandings and misplaced concerns about the impact of
certain books on young readers. This study, therefore, serves as a
crucial reminder that the viewpoints of adolescents should not be
overlooked. Understanding these perspectives through research
can bridge the gap between adult assumptions and the actual
needs and preferences of young readers.
More broadly, censorship appears to serve as a mechanism
through which societies attempt to manage the content deemed
inappropriate or potentially harmful, especially for young audi-
ences. However, this research underlines that censorship often
drives curiosity rather than compliance among youth, suggesting
that the act of restricting access can increase interest in the
restricted materials. This confirms that censorship can have
counterproductive effects, particularly in the digital age where
access to information is fluid. This in turn only highlights the
need for understanding the youth’s perspective.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current
study are available in the Zenodo open data repository, under the
title “Replication Data for Younger adolescents’perspectives on
book censorship in Croatia”(https://zenodo.org/records/
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 9
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
14218096). The persistent link to datasets is: https://doi.org/10.
5281/zenodo.14218096.
Received: 20 July 2024; Accepted: 29 November 2024;
Notes
1“In the Name of the Family”is a non-profit Croatian organization that unites
individuals, families, and civic associations to promote universal values, marriage, and
family. Founded in 2013, the organization has several thousand members and aims to
strengthen marriage and family through social advocacy while contributing to a
democratic society. Its goals include promoting the common good and individual well-
being, supporting family values, protecting human rights protection, combating
discrimination, and advocating for freedom of thought, speech, action, and religion.
The organization also focuses on preserving the fundamental values of human life (U
ime obitelji, 2016).
2 The concept of “adolescents”is highly complex, and there is no consensus among
experts and scholars regarding the exact age of adolescents. For more information, see:
Curtis (2015)Defining adolescents. J of Adolescent and Family Health 7(2), art. 2.
https://scholar.utc.edu/jafh/vol7/iss2/2.
3 It is a novel by Bram Stoker.
4 It is probably a book by Rachel Renée Russell, a part of the “Dork Diaries”series. The
series follows the adventures and misadventures of a teenage girl named Nikki
Maxwell.
References
American Library Association (2023) Banned and Challenged Books. https://www.
ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/book-ban-data. Accessed 5 April 2024
American Association of School Librarians (2024) Common Beliefs. https://
standards.aasl.org/beliefs/. Accessed 18 March 2024
Cain CC (2005) Librarians and censorship: the ethical imperative. La. Lib.
68(3):6–8. 2005
Cambridge Dictionary (2024). Unsuitable. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/unsuitable. Accessed 23 October 2024
Code of Ethics of the Croatian Library Association (2023) https://www.hkdrustvo.
hr/o-nama/eticki-kodeks/. Accessed 25 October 2024
Collins Online Dictionary (2024). Inappropriate. https://www.collinsdictionary.
com/dictionary/english/inappropriate. Accessed 23 October 2024
Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (1998). https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/
clanci/sluzbeni/1998_01_8_121.html. Accessed 23 October 2024
Curtis AC (2015) Defining adolescents. J. Adolesc. Fam. Health 7(2):art. 2, https://
scholar.utc.edu/jafh/vol7/iss2/2/
Enriquez G (2006) The reader speaks out: adolescent reflections about con-
troversial young adult literature. ALAN Rev. 33(2):16–23
Freedman L, Johnson H (2000) Who’s protecting whom? ‘I hadn’t meant to tell you
this’, a case in point in confronting self-censorship in the choice of young
adult literature. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 44(4):356–369
Garry C (2015) Selection or censorship? School librarians and LGBTQ resources.
Sch. Lib. Worldw. 21(1):73–90. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw6884
Hartsfield DE, Kimmel SC (2020) Please let this be the crassest thing my child
reads!’: exploring community perceptions of challenged children’s literature.
Read. Psych. 41(5):369–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1768983
Hartsfield DE, Kimmel SC (2021) Supporting the right to read: principles for
selecting children’s books. Read. Teach. 74(4):419–427. https://doi.org/10.
1002/trtr.1954
Hennen C (2024) High school students’perceptions of banned books. Dissertation.
The University of Akron. https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=3168&context=honors_research_projects
Hrvatska enciklopedija, mrežno izdanje (2013. –2024.). Cenzura. https://
enciklopedija.hr/clanak/cenzura. Accessed 15 March 2024
Hull AL (2022) Challenging the challenged: a case study of collection development
practices and censorship of children’s and young adult literature within public
libraries. Master’s Paper, University of Caroline. https://doi.org/10.17615/rr5j-x297
Hunt P (1997) Censorship and children’s literature in Britain now, or, the return of
Abigail. Children’sLit.Ed.28(2):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025075930803
IFLA (2018) IFLA-ine Smjernice za knjižnične usluge za djecu od rođenja do 18
godina (ed Rankin C). https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
assets/libraries-for-children-and-ya/publications/ifla-guidelines-for-library-
services-to-children_aged-0-18-hr.pdf. Accessed 20 March 2024
IFLA School Library Guidelines (2015). https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/school-
libraries-resource-centers/publications/ifla-school-library-guidelines.pdf.
Accessed 27 October 2024
Isajlovic-Terry N, McKechnie LEF (2012) An exploratory study of children’s views
of censorship. Child Lib. 10(1):38–43
Karolides NJ, Bald M, Sova DB (1999) 100 banned books: censorship histories of
world literature. Checkmark Books, New York
Knox EJM (2020) Books, censorship, and anti-intellectualism in schools. Phi Delta
Kappan 101(7):28–32. https://kappanonline.org/books-censorship-anti-
intellectualism-schools-knox/
Lent RC, Pipkin G (2013) Keep them Reading: An Anti-Censorship Handbook for
Educators. Teachers College Press, New York
McNicol S (2016) School librarians’intellectual freedom attitudes and practices. N.
Lib. World 117(5-6):329–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2016-0002
Mehta T (2023) Does rewriting literature rob it of its essence?. Dig The ESTD.
https://www.theestablished.com/culture/living/does-rewriting-literature-rob-
it-of-its-essence
Oltmann S (2018) Ethics, values, and intellectual freedom in school libraries. Sch.
lib. Worldw. 24(1):71–86. https://doi.org/10.29173/slw8218
PEN America (2023) Banned in the USA: State laws supercharge books supression
in schools. https://pen.org/report/banned-in-the-usa-state-laws-supercharge-
book-suppression-in-schools/. Accessed 15 April 2024
Proleksis enciklopedija online (2015) Cenzura. https://proleksis.lzmk.hr/14889/.
Accessed 15 March 2024
Scott MacLeod A (1983) Censorship and children’s literature. Lib. Q. 53(1):26–38
Rumberger A (2019) The elementary school library: tensions between access and
censorship. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 20(4):409–421. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1463949119888491
StipčevićA (1994) O savršenom cenzoru iliti praktički priručnik protiv štetnih
knjiga i njihovih autora, Nakladni zavod Matice hrvatske, Zagreb
Town CJ (2014) ‘Unsuitable’books: young adult fiction and censorship. McFarland
& Company, Inc., Jefferson
U ime obitelji (2016) Primjedbe i prijedlozi na Nacrt prijedloga predmetnog kur-
ikula Hrvatski jezik. https://www.scribd.com/doc/314460475/Primjedbe-i-
prijedlozi-na-Nacrt-prijedloga-predmetnog-kurikula-Hrvatski-jezik. Acces-
sed 25 March 2024
Walter VA (2001) Childrens and libraries: getting it right. American Library
Association, Chicago
WHO (2024) Adolescent Health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/adolescent-
health#tab=tab_1. Accessed 28 March 2024
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Jelena Lakuš, Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. Data Curation:
Jelena Lakuš, Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. Formal analysis: Jelena Lakuš, Ivana
Martinović, Boris Badurina. Investigation: Jelena Lakuš, Ivana Martinović, Boris
Badurina. Methodology: Jelena Lakuš, Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. Validation:
Jelena Lakuš, Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. Writing - original draft: Jelena Lakuš,
Ivana Martinović, Boris Badurina. Writing - review and editing: Jelena Lakuš, Ivana
Martinović, Boris Badurina.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance
with The ethical code of conducting research with children (2020). The study was
approved by Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Josip
Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Croatia (Ethical approval code: 2158-83-02-24-2).
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from parents and the school principal. The research
topic, its purpose and significance, were explained to participants both orally and on the
first page of the questionnaire to ensure a comprehensive understanding before their
decision to participate. Participants had the freedom to begin filling out the questionnaire
or to stop responding to questions at any time at their own discretion. It was commu-
nicated to them that filling out the questionnaire is anonymous.
Additional information
Supplementary information The online version contains supplementary material
available at https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Jelena Lakuš.
Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.nature.com/reprints
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
ARTICLE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
10 HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party
material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 ARTICLE
HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS | (2024) 11:1726 | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04215-7 11
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
