On Monday, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, signed the Freedom to Read Act, which prohibits the state's schools and public libraries from arbitrarily banning books. It specifically prohibits school boards and public libraries from "excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors," which many conservative actors have frequently done or attempted to do over the last three years.

By passing this bill, New Jersey joins the states of Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington in proactively thwarting conservative attacks on books written primarily by authors of color and LGBTQ authors. Calling it a measure to protect "intellectual freedom," Murphy made clear in a statement that the law is a response to censorship elsewhere. "Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others," he wrote, adding that "there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely." He also told The Associated Press that this law is "the antithesis of all these book banning states that you see."

As conservative politicians wage a never-ending war against everything from gender-affirming care for trans youth to health care for pregnant people, progressives often find themselves on the defensive. As progressives fight to expand our political possibilities and quell repressive legislation, laws like New Jersey's Freedom to Read Act should be a signal to lawmakers and governors in more liberal states that it's time to play offense.

Progressive legislators shouldn't sit around waiting for conservative activists to pick their next target in their culture wars. Instead, they should be pre-emptively protecting vulnerable populations and institutions as New Jersey has now done. Whether it's enshrining abortion rights, prohibiting book bans or ensuring trans people of all ages have access to gender-affirming care, liberal states should commit to aggressively outmaneuvering their conservative counterparts.

As for the specifics of New Jersey's law, there's nothing new about book bans. The Pilgrims banned books. In the 1800s, multiple states prohibited the distribution of anti-slavery pamphlets. The Comstock Act, passed in 1873, still prohibits "obscene" or "immoral" articles from being mailed. Book bans are so common that the American Library Association has been observing Banned Books Week since 1982. Some of the world's most revered authors, including William Shakespeare, Alice Walker and Toni Morrison have had their works banned.

I'm a child of the '90s. When I was growing up, my elementary and middle school teachers not only kept banned books in their classrooms, but they also encouraged us to read them. My fourth-grade teacher read "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" to us, though it was being challenged at the time for promoting "witchcraft." My mom gifted me a copy of Judy Blume's "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" when I was in sixth grade, though it has been banned for being frank about puberty and menstruation. We read Toni Morrison's "The Bluest Eye" -- banned for its depiction of child sexual abuse and "graphic" language -- in the ninth grade. Libraries in my area would proudly display banned books, and I devoured as many of them as I could.

However, since 2022, the culture around book banning has become increasingly vitriolic as activist groups and their lapdog lawmakers have threatened librarians and teachers with jail for reading (or letting children read) "controversial titles." In 2022, the American Library Association reported that there were nearly 2,600 books targeted in schools and public libraries, a new record that nearly doubled the number of challenges from 2021. In 2023, that number jumped to 4,200 works, and the final numbers will likely show that it increased again in 2024. Over the past two years, lawmakers in 15 states, including Florida and Texas, have introduced bills that would penalize libraries and librarians for carrying "controversial" titles with threats of defunding or even incarceration.

Not surprisingly, there's been a blatant rise in the number of targeted books that are written by authors from marginalized communities. PEN America's report on book banning during the 2023-24 school year found that many books by women of color were appearing on its annual list for the first time, even though several were published decades earlier. None of this is accidental.

Reading made me curious about myself, about those close to me and about the broader world. Book banning, then, is not just an attempt to control what children read. It's also a means of quashing their curiosity and making their worlds smaller. That seems to be the ultimate goal.

"Access to diverse literary resources is fundamental to fostering intellectual growth and cultural understanding," New Jersey Assemblywoman Shavonda E. Sumter said in a statement about the Freedom to Read Act. "We must protect this right and ensure equitable access to diverse perspectives. These rights extend beyond the school door and into our public libraries. We cannot, must not, and will not compromise on equitable access to these vital resources."

Public schools and libraries have become contested ground, but they need not be. Both are critical institutions that offer invaluable resources to children of all economic and racial backgrounds, which is the very reason they're being attacked. The conservative vision of America includes limiting possibilities for children of color, disabled children, low-income children and gender-nonconforming children -- and targeting what they learn and what they read only further entrenches this discrimination. Instead of accepting this repression as our new reality, progressives in positions of power must be aggressive in offering alternatives.

Of the "Freedom to Read Act," Murphy told The Associated Press, "I'm incredibly proud to have signed it but also acknowledge that America -- and this is yet another good example -- is becoming a patchwork quilt country. It really matters where you live."

It does matter where we're able to live and how we're able to be, and if liberals want to tout that the states they run are worth relocating to and living in, then they must start by declaring loudly and proudly that the freedom to read without consequence or interference is essential to building the progressive world we desire, one where no child gets left behind.