It discusses notable censored works, including Ulysses by James Joyce, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence and the seven dirty words monologue by comedian George Carlin.

The author explores the question of whether children and adolescents are negatively impacted by exposure to media deemed inappropriate by adults (including violence and pornography), arguing that youths are not endangered by sexually explicit material.

[2][3] Her prior published books include Strictly Ghetto Property: The Story of Los Siete de la Raza (1972),[4] Cutting the Mustard: Affirmative Action and the Nature of Excellence (1987)[5] and Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars (1993).

[6] After Not in Front of the Children was published, Heins wrote Priests of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge[7] (which received the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award) in 2013.

[25] Contemporary censorship issues detailed in the book include Howard Stern and the Columbine High School massacre,[24] and the author critiques A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit and Mothers Organized for Moral Stability (MOMS).

[26] The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ginsberg's conviction,[26] ruling that the New York State Legislature was not required to prove a tangible negative impact on youth from exposure to sexually explicit material.

[26] He concluded he knew individuals who fit the definition of juvenile delinquent but were fifty years old, and extrapolated the impact of the decision could be expanded to affect adults and multiple organizations in society instead of just youths.

[28][29][30] In an article for Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, Middlebury College women's studies professor Deborah Grant compared the book to Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine.

[31] Perry L. Glanzer wrote in English Journal that Heins had a valid viewpoint to engage students on controversial topics in literature classes, and he added it was necessary to teach them all perspectives of a debate.

[29] Ellen P. Goodman wrote for Berkeley Technology Law Journal that Heins was critical of prior articles which attempted to show negative impact from violence as portrayed on television programs.

[32] Writing in the journal Social Problems, Jessica Fields characterized Not in Front of the Children as a significant monograph which effectively criticized the rhetoric of protection of the sexual purity of youths as a form of ideology.

[33] Cynthia A. McDaniel wrote in a piece for the journal Counterpoints assessing that Heins had put forth a thesis that attempting to shield youths from events led to negative unintended consequences.

[34] Dresang wrote that Heins had successfully shown that this doctrine, which served as the core basis for legislation including the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), was demonstrably impossible to prove.

[34] She concluded that Heins concisely argued censorship of works from the reach of children can have negative impacts on their level of innovation, healthy mental growth, and adaptive abilities.

[34] Writing in English Journal, Tonya Perry discussed the work and emphasized that if the motivation behind children's education was to produce independent critical thinkers, it was necessary to extend the limits of censorship.

[35] He observed that the rationale for justifying censorship of artwork from children was based upon similar reasons dating back from Plato to contemporary times, namely anxiety that youth would become corrupted by viewing products deemed inappropriate.

[2] Publishers Weekly reviewed the book favorably, and questioned whether Edward Lear would have been surprised to find his 1867 poem "The Owl and the Pussycat" had been censored from school library computer access due to online filters restricting users from reading anything containing the word "pussy".

[26] The Hollywood Reporter noted that Heins made an important distinction in arguing that taboo topics should be taught to children by their parents, and it should not be the role of government to censor what material individuals are allowed to view (or speak).