If you’ve been reading my articles for any length of time, you're aware that I am deeply involved and passionate about the controversy surrounding the collection of books in libraries, particularly those available to children.
So it will come as little surprise that I am writing to refute yet another case which the Alabama Political Reporter (APR) thinks is dispositive on the issue. APR recently reported on a case arising from Florida in which a district court judge, the lowest judge on the totem pole, struck down a Florida law requiring each school board to adopt a policy that allows parents to object to books or material in a classroom or school library and give a process for resolution. The objection must be on the grounds that the book or material is pornographic as defined by another statute or depicts or describes sexual conduct unless it is for educational purposes.
Why did the judge strike it down? Because it doesn’t line up with the Miller test, apparently, and thus is constitutionally protected speech.
The whole case actually opens with this dramatic presentation of damages: A student went to the library to check out a certain book. But it wasn’t there. Not because it was checked out. But because (dun dun dun) it was removed!!! (Insert woman screaming in terror here.) I expect the child is now in counseling to address the disappointment and broken heart that come from unmet book expectations.
I honestly could not tell you why the APR believes this case should serve as a warning to Alabama legislators. The facts of the case do not line up at all. The laws aren’t even similar. Florida’s law requires public schools to set up a system for challenges to books. Alabama’s code, which is just a code by the Alabama Library Services, requires public libraries to move or remove books that have sexual content from the children’s section of the library or risk losing funding. So I’m not sure where APR finds the similarities other than perhaps the writer googled books and law and found this case.
However, more to the point, I do not believe this ruling will stand on appeal. Obama-appointed Judge Carlos Mendoza may not be up to speed on recent Supreme Court rulings, but the 11th Circuit is likely in the know. Just a few months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a great ruling in Paxton v. Free Speech Coalition, upholding a Texas porn law.
Now I know the Paxton case is not about books in any public space; it is a case chiefly about regulating minors' use of pornographic websites. However, it does say something that Mendoza missed. In the main opinion, Justice Thomas said the Miller test is not the only test for what is obscene or not constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. Further, the Court upheld the use of a “Miller for Minors” test, something Mendoza and APR have skipped over entirely. For a more thorough explanation of that case, I would point to my previous article on recent Supreme Court holdings.
The entire holding of the Florida case is premised on a struck-down view of First Amendment jurisprudence. I don’t see a world in which the 11th Circuit or the Supreme Court would allow a “Miller for Minors” test for pornography sites but not books made available to children. Not that the left won’t try to make that world happen, I just don’t see it as a logical possibility. However, the left is not overly concerned with adhering to the law and jurisprudence anyway. They are bigger fans of issuing holdings just because they like the outcome, rather than because it aligns with existing law.
The takeaway here for Alabama is that we should not be overly concerned with this Florida case. It is in its early stages of litigation, and its overturn in the 11th Circuit is highly likely.
If you are very excited about a book and go to check it out at a library, but go into conniptions because it’s not in their collection, I would seek counseling. Furthermore, if you or a loved one has been harmed by unmet book expectations or availability, don’t call a lawyer. We can’t help you.
My advice as a book lover? Contact Amazon instead. The two-day shipping is priceless.
Laura Clark is a wife, mother, and community activist. She currently serves as the interim president of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, a conservative nonprofit law firm that fights for limited government, free markets, and strong families in the courts. Anything written by Laura for this publication does not constitute legal advice.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning
