A federal judge in Florida defeated most of the state’s expanded “gay” laws and found that its no-author clause violated the initial amendment. The 2023 law not only restricted classroom discussions about LGBTQ identity, but also made it easier for county residents to request the removal of books from school libraries.
Under the law, once complaints are filed, the school has had five days to draw disputed books from the shelf and is no longer available during review. The district had to set up procedures to handle complaints, but these rules were criticized for supporting censorship and bystanders who opposed the ban.
The law required schools to remove books that were flagged as “indecent” that contain “sexual content,” “pornographic content,” or anything that describes sexual conduct. The ambiguous and low bar for removal pulled out of the shelves award-winning novels and young adult classics from the shelves.
The flagged title included high school English staples. Purple colors looking for Alaska, slaughterhouse 5, Handmade tales, Lover, Freedom Writer’s diary, How Garcia Girl Lost Accent, Kafia Boy, Nativeson, and blue eyes.
Florida has banned documents that they have already met The U.S. Supreme Court definition It was “indecent” or legally “harmful to minors.” However, the new law has gone further, urging districts to purge content deemed “age-inappropriate” from classrooms and libraries.
Hillsboro County, which serves the Tampa area, has banned William Shakespeare’s district, including Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and Hamlet, to refer to sexuality and include cross-dressing characters.
Escambia County, which serves the Pensacola area, has staff removed Over 2800 booksIncludes dictionary like American Heritage Children’s Dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary for Students, and Merriam-Webster’s Primary Dictionary. As reported by Popularity information, The dictionary has been removed because it contains definitions of sexual anatomy and terms such as “gay” and “lesbian.”
In August 2024, the Author Guild joined major publishers such as Penguin Random House, Hachett, Harper Collins, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebook.
The lawsuit alleges that the Florida Department of Education told librarians and educators to “make mistakes on the part of attention,” encouraged the enthusiastic removal of praised literature and encouraged parents and residents to request rescue in order to request rescue on personal objections.
The lawsuit cited cases in which students sought praised literary works just to discover that they had been removed because they allegedly violated the law.
On August 13th, US District Judge Carlos Mendoza for the Central District of Florida Domination The provisions of the scope of the book in the law were unconstitutional.
Mendoza also found that the regulations restricting Florida books cannot define criteria for determining whether a book is “indecent,” “pornographic,” “describes sexual conduct,” or “inappropriate” for a particular age or grade. Ambiguous criteria create a “I know it when I see it” test that relies on personal opinions rather than neutral benchmarks. As a result, Mendoza argued that the provisions chilled free speech and violated the First Amendment.
Furthermore, Mendoza noted that materials deemed inappropriate to younger students may not be deemed inappropriate to older students. He said the law would force educators and librarians to “call a series of difficult judgments about what is indecent for children of all ages.”
Mendoza noted that several districts have flagged and removed non-obscene books to comply with the law. Citing a list of deleted titles, he wrote: “None of these books are obscene. The restrictions published in these books are unreasonable in light of the purpose of the school library.”
Most importantly, Mendoza rejected Florida’s claim that the school was engaged in “government speeches” when purging books that allowed removal for any reason, including point of view discrimination. In 2023, former Florida Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) Ashley Moody argued that the state has the right to make “value-based judgments” about school materials, even comparing the challenged books to “Nazi propaganda.”
Mendoza emphasized the importance of relying on the professional judgment of the book librarian to determine the appropriateness of the book, and Florida’s claim rejected the claim that rescue was merely a part of the usual “curation” of library collections.
“Here, the government is not engaged in expressive activities,” he wrote. “In spite of the best efforts the defendant has made to frame it, the statutory provisions in question do not include the discretion of government officials in curating an appropriate collection of libraries’ books that are “worthy to read.” … [T]He here requires the removal of books that contain even a single reference to prohibited subjects, regardless of the overall value of the book, or as part of a larger collection. ”
The author’s guild welcomed Mendoza’s ruling as a victory over free expression, diverse literature and the author’s voice.
“This victory affirms that we always know. Literature ensures that it has the power to expand the world, develop empathy and help young people understand themselves and their experiences,” said Mary Lasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild in a statement. “The ban on books is not just censoring the words on the page. They silence the author’s living experiences and denies access to stories that help students navigate an increasingly complex world.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
