More book bans? Florida bill could define classics as pornography. What is SB 1692?
Two years ago, Florida passed a law that made it easier for concerned parents to get books they considered objectionable removed from school libraries and classroom shelves but allowed challenged books to be judged for their literary, artistic or scientific value.
Not anymore, if a new bill moving through the Florida Legislature passes.
Under SB 1692, if a challenged work contains nudity or sexual material it would be considered by definition harmful to minors and school boards would be restricted from considering any other value of the work, potentially risking the removal or restriction of some of the world's classic literature.
Last year, six major book publishers and several prominent authors sued the state over "unconstitutional book banning" after they said the 2023 bill (HB 1069) allowed books to be removed from schools "with no consideration of the educational value of the work as a whole."
The bill sponsored by Sen. Stan McClain, R-Ocala, the man who led the 2023 bill, seeks to clarify what "harmful to minors" means.
'I think that we're bifurcating here, so it's more clear as to what we're actually talking about so that school districts can make a decision," McClain said. "If it is in violation of the proposed law, if it's that, then it's considered pornographic and it's considered harmful to minors.' A companion bill, HB 1539, was filed by Rep. Doug Benson, R-Apopka.
Critics say that the bill would expand the number of books that will be challenged and result in important works being removed from students' sight.
'The impact here is that book bans are going to get worse, censorship is going to be worse, censorship of actually the classics, which we've seen across the state of Florida, because Florida is now Number One in the country for banning books in our public schools,' Sen. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando said.
In 2023, House Bill 2069 declared sex an immutable binary biological trait, banned nicknames or genders if they didn't apply to the student's or school employee's biological sex, made it easier for a parent or resident to challenge books, and added "depicts or describes sexual conduct" to the list of pornographic material, among other things.
The 2025 bill further defines "harmful to minors" as:
"Any reproduction, imitation, characterization, description, exhibition, presentation, or representation, of whatever kind or form, depicting nudity, sexual conduct, or sexual excitement when it:
a. Predominantly appeals to prurient, shameful, or morbid interest; and
b. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material or conduct for minors
Material authorized as part of health education or authorized by the Florida Board of Education "for specific educational purposes" would still be allowed and could not be challenged by parents or guardians.
Noncompliance may lead to the state withholding funds to the school district.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-prong test, called the Miller test, to define obscene speech. According to the Miller test, speech is obscene if:
The average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
However, an analysis of the bill says that courts have found the state has a 'compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors" which "extends to shielding minors from the influence of literature that is not obscene by adult standards."
SB 1692 completely removes the third prong of the Miller test.
In a report on the 2023-2024 school year, Florida saw more than 4,500 instances of book banning in public schools according to national free speech group PEN America, a dramatic jump up from 1,406 the year before. That's nearly half of all the 10,000 book bans recorded across the country, the report said.
The state maintains that no books have been banned in Florida schools.
'Once again, far left activists are pushing the book ban hoax on Floridians. The better question is why do these activists continue to fight to expose children to sexually explicit materials,' spokesperson Sydney Booker told The Guardian.
However, PEN America considers any book made unavailable to students as banned and lists books that were removed from school libraries and classroom shelves by districts without a formal challenge, books that were pulled pending a review, and books restricted to students based on grade or parent's permission. Under HB 2069, any book challenged must be removed from within five school days and remain unavailable to students "until the objection is resolved."
Last year the legislature restricted book ban challenges from Floridians who are not parents or guardians of a "student with access to school district materials" from filing more than one book challenge a month after reports that the bulk of challenges were coming from a very small number of people, some of whom did not have children in schools. Most of the objections were to books written by or about LGBTQ+ people or people of color.
'Let us live': LGBTQ advocates march to Florida Capitol for trans rights, protest anti-DEI bills
None of the legislation concerning book challenges offers a way for parents, guardians or residents to challenge a decision to remove a book from a school.
Last week, the state's new Department of Education workgroup tasked with redeveloping a training program for school librarians and media specialists on how to select and remove books met for the first time. Half of them were members of Moms for Liberty, the conservative group started in Florida that has been one of the driving forces behind the flood of book challenges in the state and across the country.
If passed by the Florida Legislature and signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the bill would take effect on July 1, 2025.
This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Florida bill defines nudity, sexual content as 'harmful to minors'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK — As President Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can then seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: It is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Sisak writes for the Associated Press.
Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Federal appeals court hears arguments in Trump's bid to erase hush money conviction
NEW YORK (AP) — As President Donald Trump focuses on global trade deals and dispatching troops to aid his immigration crackdown, his lawyers are fighting to erase the hush money criminal conviction that punctuated his reelection campaign last year and made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president found guilty of a crime. On Wednesday, that fight landed in a federal appeals court in Manhattan, where a three-judge panel heard arguments in Trump's long-running bid to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court so he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds. It's one way he's trying to get the historic verdict overturned. The judges in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals spent more than an hour grilling Trump's lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan district attorney's office — which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court. At turns skeptical and receptive to both sides' arguments on the weighty and seldom-tested legal issues underlying the president's request, the judges said they would take the matter under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date. But there was at least one thing all parties agreed on: it is a highly unusual case. Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall called the president 'a class of one' and Judge Susan L. Carney, noted that it was 'anomalous' for a defendant to seek to transfer a case to federal court after it has been decided in state court. Carney was nominated to the 2nd Circuit by Democratic President Barack Obama. The other judges who heard arguments, Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and Myrna Pérez were nominated by Obama and Democratic President Joe Biden, respectively. The Republican president is asking the federal appeals court to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court. Trump's Justice Department — now partly run by his former criminal defense lawyers — backs his bid to move the case to federal court. If he loses, he could go to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court,' Wall argued. Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued that Trump's historic prosecution violated the U.S. Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling , which was decided last July, about a month after the hush money verdict. The ruling reined in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal. Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018. 'The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,' Wall argued. 'He doesn't have to introduce this evidence.' Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney's office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. recently ruled that exceptions can be made if 'good cause' is shown. Trump hasn't done that, Wu argued. While 'this defendant is an unusual defendant,' Wu said, there is nothing unusual about a defendant raising subsequent court decisions, such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling for Trump, when they appeal their convictions. That appeal, he argued, should stay in state court. Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels , whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign . Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial. Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from 'conduct performed while in office.' Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president. They tried again after his conviction, about two months after the Supreme Court issued its immunity ruling. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein , who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president. Wu argued Wednesday that Trump and his lawyers should've acted more immediately after the Supreme Court ruled, and that by waiting they waived their right to seek a transfer. Wall responded that they delayed seeking to move the case to federal court because they were trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan. Merchan ultimately rejected Trump's request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him on Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
School choice policies evolved from supporting Black students to subsidizing middle-class families
Originally developed as a tool to help Black children attend better schools, school voucher programs now serve a different purpose. (Drazen via Getty Images) School voucher programs that allow families to use public funds to pay tuition to attend private schools have become increasingly popular. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia currently operate voucher programs. In addition, 15 states have universal private school choice programs that offer vouchers, education savings accounts and tax credit scholarships. Indiana's new state budget funds universal vouchers in the second year. More states are considering school choice and voucher programs as the Trump administration advocates for widespread adoption. School vouchers have a long history in the U.S. The first vouchers were offered in the 1800s to help children in sparsely populated towns in rural Vermont and Maine attend classes in public and private schools in nearby districts. After the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, in which justices ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional, segregationists used vouchers to avoid school integration. More recently, school voucher programs have been pitched as a tool to provide children from low-income families with quality education options. As a scholar who specializes in education policy, law and politics, I can share how current policies have strayed from efforts to support low-income Black children. Research from education history scholars shows that more recent support for school choice was not anchored in an agenda to privatize public schools but rooted in a mission to support Black students. Over time, as school voucher policies grew in popularity, they evolved into subsidies for middle-class families to send their children to private and parochial schools. School choice policies have also expanded to include education savings account programs and vouchers funded by tax credit donations. Vouchers can redirect money from public schools, many of which are serving Black students. States looking to add or expand school choice and voucher programs have adopted language from civil rights activists pushing for equal access to quality education for all children. For example, they contend that school choice is a civil right all families and students should have as U.S. citizens. But school voucher programs can exclude Black students and harm public schools serving Black students in a host of ways, research shows. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Since the Brown v. Board ruling, school voucher programs have been linked to racial segregation. These programs were at times used to circumvent integration efforts: They allowed white families to transfer their children out of diverse public schools into private schools. In fact, school voucher programs tend to exacerbate both racial and economic segregation, a trend that continues today. For example, private schools that receive voucher funding are not always required to adopt the same antidiscrimination policies as public schools. School voucher programs can also negatively impact the quality of public schools serving Black students. As some of the best and brightest students leave to attend private or parochial ones, public schools in communities serving Black students often face declining enrollments and reduced resources. In cities such as Macon, Georgia, families say that majority Black schools lack resources because so many families use the state's voucher-style program to attend mostly white private schools. Moreover, the cost of attending a private or parochial school can be so expensive that even with a school voucher, Black families still struggle to afford the cost of sending children to these schools. Research from the Economic Policy Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C., shows that voucher programs in Ohio result in majority Black school systems such as the Cleveland Metropolitan School District losing millions in education funding. This impact of voucher programs disproportionately affects schools in predominantly Black communities across the U.S. with lower tax bases to fund public schools. Another example is the Marion County School District, a South Carolina system where about 77% of students are Black. Marion County is in the heart of the region of the state known as the 'Corridor of Shame,' known for its inadequate funding and its levels of poor student achievement. The 17 counties along the corridor are predominantly minority communities, with high poverty rates and poor public school funding because of the area's low tax base due to a lack of industry. On average, South Carolina school districts spent an estimated US$18,842 per student during the 2024-25 school year. In Marion County, per-student funding was $16,463 during the 2024-2025 school year. By comparison, in Charleston County, the most affluent in the state, per-student funding was more than $26,000. Rather than focus on school choice and voucher programs that take money away from public schools serving Black students, I argue that policymakers should address systemic inequities in education to ensure that all students have access to a quality education. Establishing restrictions on the use of funds and requiring preferences for low-income Black students could help direct school voucher policies back toward their intent. It would also be beneficial to expand and enforce civil rights laws to prevent discrimination against Black students. These measures would help ensure all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
