Pen America, Inc., a self-described "free expression organization," has sued the Florida Escambia County School District and School Board for removing certain books from its school library shelves that the district deems not in keeping with their educational goals. Pen says,
“Children in a democracy must not be taught that books are dangerous. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the constitution,” said Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America. “In Escambia County, state censors are spiriting books off shelves in a deliberate attempt to suppress diverse voices. In a nation built on free speech, this cannot stand. The law demands that the Escambia County School District put removed or restricted books back on library shelves where they belong.”
If as Pen America avers, “Books have the capacity to change lives for the better, and students in
particular deserve equitable access to a wide range of perspectives," then books also have the capacity to change students lives for the worse.
To suggest that the ideas found in some books are not dangerous to children is to leave the realm of reality and float on a utopian cloud. Or worse, it is a blatant agenda to twist the Constitution in ways that allows for the indoctrination of children that opposes local control over a community's minors, and negates parental rights. Notice that Pen America states, "The freedom to read is guaranteed by the constitution [sic]."
I challenge Pen America to find in the US Constitution where it says "freedom to read."
The Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, has filed an amicus brief in the case, which is brilliant in expounding upon the arguments involved. You can find the brief here.
A few points from the filing:
"PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM.
1. Plaintiffs contend that “[s]chool libraries are . . . of great importance to
book authors and book publishers, especially with regard to books aimed at” their
intended audience—“children and young adults.” DE25-1 ¶ 41. In their view, “[t]he
libraries within the School District constitute, at a minimum, non-public forums,”
and, “[b]ecause they are non-public forums, the School Board cannot” restrict
access to materials “based on viewpoint.” Id. ¶ 218. That is wrong because
Florida’s public-school libraries are a forum for government, not private, speech.
And when the government speaks, it “can freely select the views that it wants to
express, including choosing not to speak and speaking through the removal of
speech that the government disapproves.” Gundy, 50 F.4th at 71(cleaned up)"
And: "...the Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit have repeatedly held that the
government’s authority to “regulate the content of . . . its own message,”
Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833, includes the discretion to select materials and
content for compilation and presentation to citizens, be it a government parade,2
a broadcasted debate,3 a state-university commencement,4 or a state-sponsored
art gallery.5"
Further: "And because the compilation of library materials is government speech, the
First Amendment does not bar the government from making viewpoint-based
choices about what to curate. See Gittens, 414 F.3d at 29; Am. Libr. Ass’n, 539
U.S. at 204–05 (plurality op.)
That principle applies with even more force in public-school libraries, the purpose
of which is to support the government’s educational mission by “providing
materials that properly supplement the basic readings assigned through the
standard curriculum.” Zykan v. Warsaw Cmty. Sch. Corp., 631 F.2d 1300, 1308
(7th Cir.1980). By curating a school library, the government conveys its view on
which books have the “requisite and appropriate quality” to bolster student
development."
And here: "2. The Student Plaintiffs are just as wrong that the First Amendment
bars the government from restricting library books “for the purpose of ‘deny[ing]
students access to ideas with which’ the school district disagrees.” DE25-1 ¶ 225
(citing Pico, 457 U.S. at 870–71 (plurality op.). The government has no
constitutional obligation to present educational material with which it disagrees.
Because a “listener’s right to receive information is reciprocal to the speaker’s
right to speak,” Doe ex rel. Doe v. Governor of N.J., 783 F.3d 150, 155 (3d Cir.
2015), that right cannot be deployed to interfere with the government’s own
message. Students certainly have no more right to control what the government
puts in its libraries than they do to control the content of a school cheer, see
Dean, 12 F.4th at 1265–66 (cheer leading is government speech), or the message
they communicate while participating in a training practicum, see Keeton v.
Anderson-Wiley, 664 F.3d 865, 877 (11th Cir. 2011) (same for school practica)."
This case may have implications beyond government-funded public schools. It is well worth following.
