Gay Penguins Face Florida's Classroom Speech Regulations
Several Florida school districts began removing books from their collections that could possibly violate the new law—including And Tango Makes Three, a picture book depicting two male penguins who raise a chick together. In 2023, the authors of the book filed a lawsuit against one school district that removed the book, arguing that "the Ban's vagueness, in combination with its harsh penalties, make it more likely to be applied expansively—such as to public school libraries—at the expense of the authors' free speech rights and the students' right to receive information."
The state disagrees. In a November court filing, lawyers for the school district argued that authors don't have a constitutional right to demand their books be made available at school libraries. Instead, the school board has "the First Amendment right to choose what message is conveyed through its curation of the library collection," adding that "when the Board selects books to be made available in its school libraries, it is the government speaking, not the books' authors."
So who's right?
"The removal of And Tango Makes Three is constitutionally suspect because it appears to be driven by school authorities' disagreement with a particular viewpoint or perspective," says Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech group. "And when school authorities remove books from libraries out of hostility to a viewpoint or ideology, that raises serious First Amendment issues." Terr notes that in 1982, "a plurality of the Supreme Court held that public schools have discretion to determine the content of their libraries. But they can't exercise that discretion in a narrowly partisan or political manner."
This isn't the only time Florida has been sued over a school district's attempt to ban the gay penguin story. In September, a group of major publishers launched another lawsuit, this time targeting another Florida law that bans any school library book that "describes sexual conduct."
"The argument that library books are government speech really defies logic and is, I think, just an excuse for censorship," Terr explains. "Libraries contain books presenting a wide range of ideas and perspectives, many of which clash with each other. So if they're all speech of the government, then the government is babbling incoherently."
The post Gay Penguins Face Florida's Classroom Speech Regulations appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
18 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana AG Rokita steps up Butler, Notre Dame DEI investigations with new legal demands
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is demanding more information from the University of Notre Dame and Butler University as his office ramps up its pre-litigation investigation into whether the colleges' diversity, equity and inclusion practices are illegal. Earlier this summer, Rokita's office sent letters to Notre Dame, Butler and DePauw University in which he requested a bevy of internal DEI information and argued such practices and policies are a form of racial discrimination. Now, in letters sent this month, Rokita is issuing a civil investigative demand, which is a legal tool the attorney general can use to collect information prior to litigation. "On behalf of the people of Indiana, a full investigation is warranted to ensure that racial discrimination is not practiced in our institutions of higher education," Rokita said in a new release. He said the two universities failed to "address in any meaningful way" the questions included in his initial request for information in May. In the release, he said publicly available materials are "troubling" and "raise serious questions" whether they are in compliance with discrimination law. DePauw's response to the office's request is still being reviewed, the release said. IndyStar has requested comment from Notre Dame and Butler. In his Aug. 6 letter to Notre Dame — a Catholic university — Rokita said its religious mission does not give it "a license to discriminate on the basis of race, and the critically important First Amendment right to free exercise of religion." Rokita was more scathing and explicit in his Aug. 13 letter to Butler, which doesn't have a religious affiliation. "The state of Indiana has a 'fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education,'" Rokita's Butler letter reads. "I aim to vindicate that interest by helping ensure that institutions of higher education in our state do not practice racial discrimination of any kind in their admissions, hiring, or other functions." His office is additionally investigating whether the univeristy has violated two consumer protection laws, the Indiana False Claims Act and the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act — threats that were not weighed against Notre Dame. Rokita is the first attorney general in the country to publicly threaten legal challenges using a university's nonprofit status over differences on "culture war" issues — following the lead of U.S. President Donald Trump's feud with Harvard University. A flurry of recent federal and state executive orders seek to strip DEI from the government's vernacular. One particular Indiana law prohibits public institutions from taking actions based on an individual's "personal characteristic," such as race, religion, color or sex. These types of civil demands are typically a precursor to litigation, which Rokita has floated as a possibility. Notre Dame must respond to the new demands by Aug. 27 and Butler by Sept. 3. Rokita's assistant chief deputy, Blake Lanning, previously told IndyStar that the office could seek targeted court injunctions to halt policies and practices it believes to be illegal. Nonprofit organizations such as these universities exist to provide a public benefit, Lanning said, and in turn, they receive tax benefits. If an organization's actions are antithetical to its purpose, he said, the attorney general's office has legal grounds to act. However, the Indiana attorney general's powers are focused on operational changes, so the office cannot revoke a nonprofit's tax-exempt status and force an organization to pay state taxes, such as corporate income, property and sales taxes. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judges debate Georgia's ban on giving snacks, water to voters
The Brief A panel of federal appeals court judges heard oral arguments over Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line outside their polling place. In 2023, a judge restricted part of the state's election bill, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters. Civil rights groups argue that the law shuts off expressive conduct and violates the First Amendment. The state argued that it was necessary to prevent voter distraction and intimidation. A federal appeals court is debating whether Georgia's ban on providing food and water to voters waiting in line violates the First Amendment. In court on Wednesday, the groups behind the lawsuit asked the panel of three judges to uphold a lower court's ruling that part of the restrictions were probably unconstitutional. The backstory The ban is just one piece of SB 202, a 98-page bill containing dozens of changes to state voting law passed in 2021. Other changes included shortening the time to request a mail ballot, rolling back the COVID-19 pandemic-driven expansion of ballot drop boxes and reducing early voting before runoff elections. Voting rights groups, who have filed a lawsuit challenging multiple parts of the law, argued that the provision infringes on their free speech rights and should be blocked. In 2022, a judge declined to restrict the ban, saying that, while the groups may prevail in part of their challenge, it was too close to the November general election to block any part of the provision. One year later, the judge chose to temporarily block one aspect of the restrictions, saying that the provision that bars people from offering food and drink within 25 feet of any person in line is probably unconstitutional because that zone is tied to the location of voters and could stretch thousands of feet from the polling place. As part of that ruling, US District Judge J.P. Boulee also stopped the requirement that voters put their birthdates on the envelopes of their absentee ballots. What they're saying During oral arguments, the debate centered on whether passing out snacks and water should be protected under the constitutional right to free speech. Attorney Davin Rosborough, who is representing the civil rights groups, told the judges that the sharing of food or drinks was a form of speech. "[The law] absolutely shuts off this form of expressive conduct," he said. "It absolutely prevents the voters." He said that the testimony they provided as evidence showed that the act was encouraging and did not show an attempt to sway voters to any political message. The other side The state had argued that the provision was necessary to protect against conditions at polling places that could raise worries over potential illegal campaigning or voter distractions. "The reason you have a buffer zone is because you don't want a situation where people get in line to vote and they are accosted by a bunch of confusing, distracting, and possibly intimidating things," Solicitor General Stephen Petrany said. He said there was no specific reason that distributing food and drinks would constitute freedom of speech that should be protected. "We want people to be able to stand in line and be basically unobstructed," he said. What's next The arguments are expected to take months before a final decision is made. The Source Information for this article came from oral arguments and previous FOX 5 reporting. Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Judge refuses to block Alabama school DEI ban
U.S. District Judge David Proctor declined to impose a preliminary injunction that bans diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the teaching of 'divisive concepts,' in public schools and universities. The judge ruled the University of Alabama professors and students did not meet the standard for a preliminary injunction after they argued the new law violates their First Amendment rights. The case will continue but the law will remain in place for now. The Alabama law, which went into affect last October, prohibits schools from hosting or funding DEI programs and says 'divisive concepts' such as making one feel guilty or complicit about past or present actions because of their race or ethnicity. The judge argued this law does not prohibit professors from teaching these subjects, but 'it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' the judge wrote in his decision. The professors argued they have changed lessons plans due to the law and that it violates their academic freedom.
