21 ms·
"None of These Books Are Obscene": Judge Strikes Down Much of FL's Book Ban Bill
- dropacid 1y ago[flagged]
- epistasis 1y agoIt's shocking how little opposition laws like get this from people who call themselves "free speech absolutists." Here we have straightforward censorship, by the government, yet it all flies under the radar. The people who fight for free speech in these cases, devoting time and money to it, and have real meaningful effect, self-describe in more ordinary ways.
- steveBK123 1y agoYes, the same people that need the 2A right to guns to protect themselves from government tyranny also are totally fine with other forms of government tyranny.
- NickC25 1y agoAs long as the tyrants are on "their" "side" , 2A gun nuts love government tyranny, and the right to commit tyranny.
- mindslight 1y agoI'm not really a fan of either party, so I tend to dwell on the most glaring irrefutable examples that shine through groupthink biasing. Government agents summarily executed Breonna Taylor in retaliation for Kenneth Walker exercising his natural right to night time home defense. This was the exact scenario the 2A enthusiasts always grandstand about - "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away", "From my cold, dead hands", etc. Any yet the response from the sheer majority of supposed 2A enthusiasts? Utter fucking silence, if not outright support for the jackboots.
- epistasis 1y agoThis is shown throughout history too. When the Black Panthers were around the NRA was strongly in support of gun control.
- FireBeyond 1y ago"From my cold, dead hands... unless you're at an NRA convention, in which case, please use these convenient lockers we've provided, or consider leaving your firearms at home."
- mindslight 1y agoI would point out how great of a place that would be for the government to start their supposedly planned "gun confiscation", but why would they even need to do that?
- insane_dreamer 1y agoHuge Venn diagram overlap between 2A gun nuts and those who are totally fine with calling in the NG to police "out of control" cities like DC
- steveBK123 1y agomany such cases
- antonymoose 1y agoBy your logic, the government should be forced to purchase firearms and make them freely available to the citizens. The government deciding standards for content it purchase is neither tyranny nor fascism. You are free to purchase as much controversial or sexually explicit material as you see fit.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoPublic schools have librarians who are trained in pedagogy. The librarians and teachers already know what books are appropriate for kids. This is state legislators and the governor trying to prevent kids being exposed to ideas they don't personal like.
- SilverElfin 1y ago> Public schools have librarians who are trained in pedagogy. The librarians and teachers already know what books are appropriate for kids. This training means nothing. Critical pedagogy is just code for biasing the books in libraries towards the left. It isn’t even a hidden agenda - the ALA has been open about it. This “pedagogy” isn’t about what’s appropriate for kids. It’s about using a public institution and its funds to push one side’s ideas. So sure, the state may be trying to prevent kids from being exposed to ideas they don't personally like. But it is to counter the librarians and their organizations, who are trying to only expose kids to ideas they personally like.
- epistasis 1y agoPedagogy and critical pedagogy are two very different things. And critical pedagogy seems to be a very rare thing, why are you bringing it up and then adding a hyper-political slant to it? Substituting one term for another and railing against the substituted term is a very weak argument.
- SilverElfin 1y agoCritical pedagogy is not rare, but very common. I am bringing it up because the ALA pushes and practices it, as do most individual librarians in cities, whose personal politics aligns with the ALA, and whose libraries are members of ALA. That’s why public libraries in cities have a disproportionate amount of progressive biased books visible when you walk in, and virtually nothing from other ideologies.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- UmGuys 1y agoThey are the tyranny. They're literally attacking Americans with the military now. GOP has fully descended into whatever Tr*mp wants and he seems to want to destroy America.
- mlinhares 1y agoThat's because they're not "free speech absolutists", they're fascists that want to force their own idea of what valid speech is on everyone else.
- gosub100 1y agoSame thing the far left does on college campuses. They just do it under the guise of victimhood with terms like "assault" being used to describe someone speaking an unpopular opinion. If the school book wars said the kids were "assaulted" by this "hate speech" would that make it okay? Is that what they are missing is someone feigning victimhood?
- epistasis 1y agoSpeaking an unpopular opinion on campus might mean you hear other people saying things that you don't like, as well? In what way do you consider this similar to laws enforced by courts and police and the full legal system?
- DrillShopper 1y agoFalse equivalence - I don't see lefty culture warriors burning books/removing them from libraries. They are fighting to get different books (less Eurocentric, for the most part) into the curriculum, but they're not removing them from the library.
- prox 1y agoIf true they fit the exact definition of doublespeak.
- poplarsol 1y agoAll of these books are freely available if you would like to spend your own money on them, as opposed to public funds.
- epistasis 1y agoWhat does that point have to do anything? They are also available in schools, because the judge here enforced the US constitution. The article is about Florida politicians trying to censor books in public schools, literal government censorship.
- bigfishrunning 1y agoI think the problem with these laws is that they're too general. I think we can all agree that there are topics that should not be in elementary school libraries -- I don't think my 7 year old needs to be reading about oral sex for instance, regardless of the gender or sexuality of the participants. The real problem is the nature of the wording of "pornographic", which is poorly defined as "I know it when i see it", and stretched by disingenuous people with an agenda. As a "Free Speech Absolutionist", I think as much material as possible should be in public libraries, including material that some people object to. I also think that school libraries should be curated to what is appropriate for the audience. The rub here is defining what is "appropriate". Silencing minority literature is bad. Also allowing my elementary school kids to check out "the turner diaries" is bad. There needs to be a balance.
- fknorangesite 1y ago[flagged]
- bigfishrunning 1y agoThe point I'm trying to make is that panicing about book bans is not how you combat these bad-faith actors. It's defining rules to satiate their stated aims, and force them to bring their other motives to light, thus nullifying their arguments.
- root_axis 1y ago"Free speech absolutist" is a self-described label for partisan censors. Honest people understand that there's no such thing as absolute free speech.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- xnx 1y agoAlmost without exception, people who loudly proclaim to be one thing: free speech absolutist, anti-tax, heterosexual, small government, "tough on crime" are exactly the opposite.
- gosub100 1y agoUniversities saying they're "diverse" until some students started promoting terrorist and acting anti-Semitic.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoWell, maybe in practice. You could consider it an example of the law of unintended consequences. Although I would apply it equally to the other political side as well. “Diversity” = everyone has to think like me, “inclusion” = exclude certain groups and so on
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoWhat flew under the radar? It was challenged in court and struck down. The system seems to work no? How else should it work?
- steveBK123 1y agoWould be preferable to not see administrations repeatedly try obviously blatantly unconstitutional moves. Don't need to be a constitutional law expert to see the problem here. Is driving 100mph down the highway OK as long as you slow down right before the known speed trap? The system worked?
- epistasis 1y agoI am contrasting the difference between 1) those who paid attention and took action, the normal type of free speech defenders, and 2) self-described "absolutists" who have no problem with this sort of vaguely defined restriction on speech.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoWhy do you think absolutists have no problem with this law? Did you just make that up? I for one do not support the law and I would consider myself 99% an absolutist.
- anigbrowl 1y agoArguments about concepts like hate speech tend to pull out a large number of self-identified free speech absolutists, arguments about restricting access to books in libraries ends to draw out very few. You might find it intresting to dig through the history of past discussions right here on HN.
- omnimus 1y agoI don't think courts should be where laws are decided. The main reason is that every obvious case like this undermines their power in future. Soon you will have people who start to question if courts don't have too much power. When you finally get to some important politically dividing case, all these secondary rulings in the past would be used against the courts.
- whimsicalism 1y agoi don’t support this law at all, but i think it is pretty obvious that there is a difference between free speech and governmental discretion in what is taught in school. free speech doesn’t require that schools stock the “Bell Curve” or Mein Kampf for instance
- Sprocklem 1y agoThis is a strange framing. These laws are neither about what is taught in schools nor what books schools are required to stock, but rather restrictions on what books schools may chose to make available to the children. The government is not limiting the free speech of the authors, but these laws are the government limiting access to the authors' free speech, which is at least related to free speech, even if you don't buy that it is an restriction of free speech per se. I do, however, think it is also worth noting that there is value in critically discussing the ideologies espoused by "The Bell Curve" and "Mein Kampf", since both ideologies persist and continue to have influence on American politics today.
- whimsicalism 1y agoYou’re motte-baileying to ‘related to free speech’. By the standard you are setting, any curriculum-setting is free speech related, so clearly not an impermissible state action.
- Sprocklem 1y agoCurriculum-setting neither limits anyones free speech nor does it restrict their access to the free speech of others. Teachers are generally allowed to expand on the curriculum and students are given access to literature with information beyond that in the curriculum. These laws do effectively restrict access to information and ideas.
- laurent_du 1y agoUsing taxpayers money to corrupt minors is not "free speech".
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- fknorangesite 1y agoWhere is the "corruption" here? Be specific.
- komali2 1y agoAaaagh! I feel your frustration but I myself am frustrated at this dance Americans still play at that there are constitutionalists there, or people interested in "maintaining the institutions" or "free speech." There are only two kinds of politicians in America: neoliberals who are looking for opportunities to commodify the State or people in it, and fascists (or baby fascists) interested in achieving Christian nationalist or white nationalist goals by any means necessary. Even the word "libertarian" doesn't mean "anarchist" in America as it does everywhere else, to refer to the most far-left you take take political ideology. Instead it refers to a deeply right-wing ideology obsessed with corporatocracy.
- terminalshort 1y agoThere is no philosophical difference between libertarianism and anarchism, only a difference in how they predict people will behave in the absence of centralized authority.
- komali2 1y agoThere's a huge philosophical difference! American libertarians are highly focused on individualism and zero-sum behavior and thinking, whereas anarchism is a collective ideology focused on mutual aid or even communism (e.g. Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism). Libertarianism is an application of right-wing ideology subtracting the State. Opposition to the State may be a shared aspect of the ideologies, but for another example, just because Nazism advocated for nationalizing industries doesn't mean it has anything beyond that in common with Marxist Leninist Communism which advocates for the same.
- terminalshort 1y ago> Opposition to the State may be a shared aspect of the ideologies Yes, that's the philosophy. All the rest of what you said is just listing different predictions of what will happen after you get rid of the state. Once you get rid of the state, there is no authority to enforce the "mutual aid or communism" so that isn't a political philosophy. It's just a prediction of what will people will do under their own free will in the absence of a compelling authority.
- terminalshort 1y agoI completely disagree with this law, but I don't understand how this is a free speech issue. AFAIK the law isn't restricting anyone's right to freedom of speech because under this law anyone in FL is free to own, publish, buy, sell, read, or stock any book in any privately owned library. It seems to me that the government is allowed to decide what books to buy and stock in its own libraries. I don't understand how freedom of speech obligates the government to make a book available for free. It seems to me like compelled speech to require the government to stock certain books. As this pertains to schools, I don't understand how the government doesn't have the same right to control the curriculum as it does in any other case. e.g. it is not a violation of a teacher's right to free speech to order them not to teach flat earth theory in public schools because that teacher is an employee and not on their own time. Same as my employer can restrict my speech while on the job without violating my rights.
- epistasis 1y agoYour first and second paragraphs are in opposition to each other. The government is setting strict rules about what sort of books are allowed with this law. It's not a mere selection of the many books, but a strict ban of certain types of books based on their content. When the government establishes laws like this, they must be in accordance with our constitution above all, and that sort of strict criteria on banning certain types of books disagrees with the first amendment and the legal tradition around it. Similarly, you are also wrong about this compelling the government to stock certain books, that's not on the table at all.
- terminalshort 1y agoBut no books are banned. The government is allowed to set school curriculum in every other case, so why not this one? If you don't like government school rules set by the government, then who gets to set them? I don't think you have a good answer to this. You are dancing around the fact that someone has to decide what books go in the library. Who should that person be? Seems to me that it should be the owner of the library in question, which in this case is the state whose budget and laws are controlled by the legislature.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- slibhb 1y agoIt is notably weird to react to this article by criticizing "free speech absolutists". Who are the people you're criticizing? Be specific. Free speech absolutists are mostly principled people who want to defend civil liberties while getting flak from the right and left. An example of this is FIRE -- which was massively criticized by progressives for suing colleges over anti-conservative speech codes, DEI statements, etc. But FIRE has behavred in a princicpled manner and has sued conservatives and the Trump administration over civil liberties violations.
- kstrauser 1y ago> Free speech absolutists are mostly principled people who want to defend civil liberties I genuinely laughed out loud here. As a Mastodon operator, when I see another new instance describe itself as “free speech absolutists”, it means they’re about to fill up with 2 things: Nazis (as in, literally swastikas and “Jews are oppressing me!” memes) and drawings of Japanese 8 year olds in lingerie. Every. Single. Time.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoSeems like your worldview is a bit skewed by the places you choose to hang out online.
- kstrauser 1y agoNever been a moderator, have ya? I want to keep my hangouts pleasant, and sometimes that means looking at the unpleasant parts so that you can put a wall between them and myself and my friends.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y agoScott alexander and Zvi were the saddest cases- had a lot of respect for them a while back. Oh and musk of course but I think that's ketamine poisoning, not long-planned betrayal.
- 1y ago
- ModernMech 1y agoRemember the part of the book where "love" is really "war" and "freedom" is really "slavery"? It's like that. "Absolute free speech" is really "only party-approved speech".
- SilverElfin 1y agoThis story doesn’t have anything to do with free speech, because it isn’t a book ban. It’s about what public libraries spend money on and put on their shelves. You can still buy these books yourself, so clearly they aren’t banned or censored. Why can’t the state decide what to keep in libraries they fund? Let’s not pretend the default situation is uncensored. Librarians are mostly politically skewed to the left, as is their organization (ALA). Walk into libraries in most cities and you’ll find books on the main shelves pushing political ideas from one side, associated with movements like DEI, BLM, LGBTQ, etc. But you won’t find the other side on those shelves. And that’s the issue. Public money is being used by activist librarians, who practice “critical librarianship”, to basically censor the other side. Changes to public libraries are intended to correct that bias.
- dogleash 1y agoMy highschool had banned books. That's what got me into the free speech thing in the first place. But sure, make me republican in your mind because whatever. It's attitudes like yours that discourage me from wanting to show up for the cause anymore.
- epistasis 1y agoYou seem to be making a bunch of unwarranted assumptions about what's in my mind, and getting upset about that, but I can't even imagine what your assumptions are. Your only stated assumption, about me thinking you are "Republican," is false, and not at all contained in my comment. If you are motivated towards free speech action because of banned books don't you think I would suppprt you in that?! That's the entire thrust of my comment, I think people fighting for free speech are great, and based on the information you provided you seem to be doing that!
- dogleash 1y ago>don't you think I would suppprt you in that?! Of course not and I'll explain why: Lefties regularly distance themselves from me when I accidentally let my anti-authoritarian positions code as libertarian to them. Your parent post is a shallow dismissal of some free speech support as opportunistic with a weak-ass signal to identify the group. The same exact behavior I'm used to seeing from ostensibly likeminded individuals that ice me out for non-conformity. (I'll concede you don't name a political party, but in a two party system it's not a secret and I was just saying the implied part out loud.) So no, I don't think the person who came into the comments to shadowbox people who aren't supporting the cause properly would support me.
- UmGuys 1y agoIt's marketing. Usually free speech absolutists just want to be able to say bigoted things. Often, they're simply racist. People are very volatile and polarized because of their social media's marketing. GOP marketing is insane. They're marketed as fiscally responsible, good for the economy, conservative, pro free speech, pro liberty, capitalist, and recently anti-war. And somehow people believe that despite reality. I can't grasp how anyone could ever support someone so awful as Trump. The man is a pathetic spoiled rotten bully in clown face who can barely string together a coherent sentence. Not to mention all the (sex) crime.
- egypturnash 1y ago[flagged]
- xrd 1y agoThis is not just a few rogue FL citizens trying to ban books. This is spearheaded by the Florida government itself. The education commissioner is Anastasios Kamoutsas, appointed by DeSantis. Given that a culture war is a great way to market yourself to voters, expect appeals.
- guywithahat 1y agoMaybe, but at the same time there is a serious issue with adult/sexual content in fictional books with no real historical or scientific value. Saying kids have to have access to books about how to perform bj's is a losing argument. If a parent wants their kid to have access to such books they should buy them themselves (although I'd like to think CPS would give them a ring), and we shouldn't conflate what's obscene for an 6 year old to what's obscene for a 30 year old
- Vegenoid 1y ago> Saying kids have to have access to books about how to perform bj's is a losing argument. This isn't the argument, which is why it didn't lose. The argument is that the law was too broad and banned books that have long been considered to have great literary value. Did you see the list of books that have been banned as a result of this bill in the article? The bill does not allow consideration of literary value (a.k.a. the rest of the book, and its role in history), it only considers some sexual content in the book in isolation. It also applied to the entire school system, these books were being banned from high school libraries.
- const_cast 1y ago> Maybe, but at the same time there is a serious issue with adult/sexual content in fictional books with no real historical or scientific value. Is there? Because I've heard this and everytime it's been an hallucination. And also text on a page is not sexual. Its true that literary classics like "Kite Runner" include rape. But that's not a sexual book. Is there actual, literal smut on school library shelves? Almost certainly not. Its not a problem of sexual content, but rather a cultural problem of extreme prudism and purity culture, coupled with religious extremism.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 63 1y agoIt was surprising to me just how many of the banned books have immense literary value. The Color Purple, The Handmaid's Tale, The Kite Runner, etc. aren't random books that may be a little obscene, they're literary classics. In my opinion this is what makes it obvious that these bans were made in bad faith.
- bigfishrunning 1y agoYes, extremely bad faith. These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity, but they're not obscene.
- zozbot234 1y ago> These books are upsetting, and show a very ugly side of humanity Funnily enough, that's exactly what "obscene" means in popular parlance. On the other hand, the legal standard for what should be considered obscene is so inherently uncertain and varies so much across time and place that it's just meaningless to say anything that purports to be definitive about that.
- throwanem 1y agoNo, it isn't. The modern standard of obscenity in US federal law, the "Miller test," derives from a 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the eponymous Miller v. California. I realize you're referring to some universal abstract theoretical concept of obscenity that doesn't apply or exist. The one I describe does, and I think that makes it more useful here.
- zeroonetwothree 1y agoThe Miller test doesn’t apply to content for minors though. So even here you are oversimplifying. Especially considering this post is about school.
- ethbr1 1y ago
- jwally 1y agoIs the Bible still ok??? -------------------- Genesis 16:4 – “And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived…” (Abram and Hagar) Genesis 29:23 – “…and he went in unto her.” (Jacob and Leah) Genesis 30:4 – “…and Jacob went in unto her.” (Jacob and Bilhah) Ruth 4:13 – “…and he went in unto her, and the LORD gave her conception…” (Boaz and Ruth) Variants & related euphemisms Genesis 38:16 – “…he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee…” (Judah and Tamar) 2 Samuel 11:4 – “And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her…” (David and Bathsheba) Leviticus 18:6+ – “uncover nakedness” is repeated as a sexual euphemism. Genesis 38:9 – “…when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground…” (Onan; explicit ejaculation reference).
- bigfishrunning 1y agoI don't think the bible is in public school libraries -- if it is (as historical literature), it's probably unconstitutional to teach from it or promote it.
- jjallen 1y agoThe Ten Commandments are required to be posted on every public school wall in Texas. You would have guessed that that is also unconstitutional
- SoftTalker 1y agoThey are deemed to be secular, like Christmas.
- dylan604 1y agoThe ten commandments are definitely not secular, but it is funny how up until the 1950s christmas was deemed a pagan religious holiday and was even listed this way in encyclopedias from that time. Then suddenly, it was listed as a christian holiday, except there is no reference about it in the bible with new testament references specifying to not keep that holiday. How these can be deemed the same is beyond rational thinking.
- DudeOpotomus 1y agoAt no time in human history have the people who banned books been on the good side.
- tgv 1y agoBanning Mein Kampf was not on the bad side of history. It's rarely black and white.
- asadotzler 1y agoWhich books on the list covered in this article are equivalents of Mein Kampf in mid-century Germany? I'll save you the effort. The answer is "none of them." That makes it pretty black and white for me. There's not some massive overlap here that makes it all shades of gray. The two situations and the works of literature are entirely different and the Germany case is an abberation, an exception, and hardly a good basis for drawing global conclusions. It is black and white. Either you're for or against the wholesale banning of books or you're for it. Countering with "but this one time in this one place" is hardly convincing.
- fabian2k 1y agoIt's not actually banned in Germany. Though I think the only edition you can buy here is annotated, which does seem like a good idea.
- hulium 1y agoIt was essentially banned via copyright for a long time. The only reason that it is available now is that 70 years have passed since the authors death.
- tgv 1y agoIt actually was forbidden in other countries. But that's not the point. I do not consider banning this particular book bad, nor on the wrong side of history. Do you?
- Barrin92 1y ago
- nerdjon 1y agoWell... it is nice to get some good news on this front but I can't shake that this is likely short lived given the federal government right now... There is less and less any reason for them to try to hide their true intentions and can just be more open with their blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc etc. Side note: was quite surprised to see a reference to Cloud Atlas. While not surprised given the entire point of that book, it makes me wonder how much these people are actually reading these books and what that looks like.
- antonymoose 1y agoWell it’s not over yet, this will likely go through many rounds of back and forth appeals since it’s not clear what obligation Florida has to the public in policing content it purchases. It’s not as if they banned you from buying the books, after all.
- epistasis 1y agoSeems like they could rely on the librarian to make decisions, then if there's a problem have the administration deal with it, and escalate as normal... Rather than big government via vague laws that allow random people to control everything in schools.
- Starman_Jones 1y agoThey could do that. That would be an effective way to protect children while also respecting the children's First Amendment rights. Instead, well... "Foreseeable consequences are intended consequences."
- duxup 1y agoThe other route, rather than ban books is to threaten librarians with prosecution so they do the job for legislators, perhaps just out of fear: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/north-dakota-books-obscene.html?unlocked_article_code=1.eE8.E0b4.vzMadWIlVggB&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/14/us/north-dakota-books-obs...
- whimsicalism 1y agoi was a voracious reader as a child (and still largely am) and can’t remember ever touching a school library (most of the books stocked were stupid). wonder if this is different in Florida
- briandw 1y agoVery few people that I talk to are truly in favor of free speech as a principle. They are either in favor of free speech in cases like this, where christians are banning books that they like, and not in favor when it’s about political correctness (misgendering, banning words, hate speech etc) or vice versa. Free speech for me and not for thee seems to order of the day.
- tstrimple 1y agoExcellent use of false equivalency. The people banning books are pretty much the same as the people who prefer that you use pronouns they see themselves as! One side actually getting these resolutions in place in writing in law versus people complaining online about being misgendered! It seems like you aren't truly in favor of free speech as a principle after all. You don't seem to want people to have the right to complain about being misgendered or about hateful speech. Why do you want to silence people who espouse these things? Or do you actually have some delusion that Democrats have banned words and hate speech?
- Refreeze5224 1y agoOnly fascists ban books.
- chrisco255 1y agoThis isn't a book ban, you can still buy these on Amazon, in Barnes & Nobles, borrow from local libraries, etc.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago"You can just buy in to freedom of expression!" Yes, this is not as bad as a making the books illegal.
- JohnMakin 1y agoThe Bible has tons of sexual content, yet something tells me the same parents appealing to get these books removed take no issue with that one.
- rayiner 1y agoThere is a high likelihood this ruling gets overturned. The title and the article use the term “book ban” but gloss over what’s actually happening which is legally significant: > HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book Florida cannot ban private libraries from stocking books with sexual content. But librarians are government employees buying books and maintaining libraries with government money. The state can direct its employees what kinds of books to make available for the same reason any private entity can do so. This might be different if libraries were neutral venues for authors to come present about their books. In that case you might have a case about viewpoint discrimination. But the first amendment can’t force the government to buy particular books and make them available to the public.
- myfavoritedog 1y ago[dead]
- _zagj 1y ago[flagged]
- jmull 1y ago> The state can direct its employees what kinds of books to make available for the same reason any private entity can do so. Not according to the constitution.
- rayiner 1y agohttps://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech
- jmull 1y agoThis isn't an unlimited loophole in the constitution (at least not so far). As the article you link to points out, "It is not always clear when the government is speaking for itself instead of unconstitutionally restricting others’ speech...The Supreme Court has not yet provided a clear standard for this type of case." Also, "...even though government speech is not regulated by the Free Speech Clause, it is still subject to the Establishment Clause."
- treetalker 1y agoI, for one, am shocked — shocked! — that the Florida Legislature and the DeSantis administration would violate the Constitution of the United States of America. Clearly some rogue agent in the library deep state must be to blame.
- chrisco255 1y agoThey didn't violate the constitution. There was no ban on books, there was an exclusion of specific titles from school libraries (which is nothing new), which are run by the State of Florida. There is no obligation that schools carry any particular book at all. If I write a book, I cannot compel my book to be carried by the state in school libraries.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThis judge just ruled that they did violate the Constitution. You are arguing a case that was already decided.
- e44858 1y agoMaybe the judge was wrong. Let's see if this ruling gets appealed.
- rsynnott 1y ago> HB 1069 required that school librarians remove materials from their collections that contain “sexual content,” regardless of the value of the book. ... So, that would be approximately every great work of literature, every important religious text... I mean, what does this leave? This seems _incredibly_ broad; even when censorship of books for obscenity was routine, there was pretty much always a getout for "yeah, but it's Proper Serious Literature". Like, what books are on the curriculum for English students in Florida? Just the Very Hungry Caterpillar? > It also allowed parents or county residents to raise objections to material, which then would need to be removed within five days of the objection and remain unavailable until the book was formally reviewed. Again, wtf? Surely this would allow anyone sufficiently motivated to just run a DOS attack.
- dinfinity 1y agoIgnore the insanity of banning books for a second. What about the Victorian-era insanity of preventing children from being exposed to the mere concept of sex and labeling it 'obscenity'? On one hand we want kids to learn about consent, what 'normal sex' is like and all that, but simultaneously there is this idiotic push to prevent them from encountering any of it until they are 18. If we don't want kids to see bad porn, we need to ensure that there is lots of good porn available, and not just some boring sex ed bullshit. I mean actual benign everyday sex that kids can safely watch and learn from because otherwise they will never see it anywhere else (it's not like they regularly watch their parents or other people do it). You have to be incredibly regressive to think 18 is somehow a good cutoff for this.
- lotyrin 1y agoWhat I've come to realize (despite avoiding such a negative conclusion) is that the dominant culture's experience with sex seems to be mostly limited to that which includes problematic power dynamics (e.g. mainstream porn, captive housewives as an ideal). They do not have a solid concept of consent. Sex is shameful to them because their concept of sex is, literally, shameful and exploitation is at the core of it. Concrete and overt examples being unable to imagine someone being sexually liberated, a woman, and a feminist all at the same time (they see sex as inherently demeaning to women), or seeing male sexual success on a "nice guy virgin" (unsuccessful through insufficient exploitation) or "man-slut womanizer" (success through excessive exploitation) spectrum. (Even the word "womanizer" bakes this assumption in, to be made a woman, woman-ized, is to be exploited?) It appears in popular discourse around trans individuals (choosing to present as a woman means you must have a sexual fantasy about being exploited, we can't expose that idea to children). Around homosexuality (so which one of you is the exploitative one). And around polyamory (you must have a cuckold kink because nobody would let someone exploit their partner otherwise). But this same dynamic also appears in a more subtle form in daily interactions in the culture and shuts down sexual topics or behavior. It's somewhat analogous to the situation of shushing a white toddler that points out the race of a non-white person because it's "rude" - you've made it apparent that you think non-whiteness is something inherently uncomfortable for a non-white person to have pointed out so you try to "spare" them this.
- tracker1 1y agoI'm surprised at the books mentioned in the article. While potentially inappropriate for elementary aged children are probably more than okay for teens and high school aged. The restrictions themselves without context, review requirements or any rigorous standards is likely excessive. That said, there are definitely examples of books that have been put into school libraries that can be considered obscene, that you can't post screenshots of on Facebook or other social media platforms, or quote or otherwise read into a school board or city council meeting. Such as graphically depicting a minor student giving fellatio to a teacher. That are wholly inappropriate in any school setting. And that isn't to restrict a parent who decides to allow their child access to this kind of material, if deemed mature enough to handle it. Only in that it doesn't belong in a public or school library. They simply aren't meant for children. Aside, I'm even open to an "adult" section of libraries that do offer mature content access/storage for adults, such as Playboy, which has a history of decent journalism.
- insane_dreamer 1y agoI presume FL banned the Bible too, which is full of sexual content (but they probably don't know that since Christians don't actually read the Bible).
- noirchen 1y agoBanning books is not something new, but I think Florida has some 'unique' criteria when banning certain books. One example I know is Jackson County, FL. once banned 1984 for being "pro-communist". In most places of the world, 1984 is considered anti-totalitarian, and anti-communist in quite a few countries (not China, where people can buy the book without any hassle). I totally get it, but Jackson County seems to be the only place that sees the book to be procommuist.
- rahimnathwani 1y agoThis is very interesting. The folks deciding to order the books and make them available are government employees. The folks seeking to prevent those employees from doing that are also government employees. AFAICT none of the parties are seeking to control what books private citizens procure themselves in their personal capacity. If we accept that governments are going to run schools, some set of government employees is going to decide which books they buy, right?