Book Publishers Mount Legal Defense Of Libraries
Using the law to protect books
It's National Library Week. This year's theme is 'Drawn to the Library,' and the American Library Association's website declares, "Stories and art draw us together, inspiring all of us to discover our own unique talents. Libraries are essential to that process—now more than ever!"
Now more than ever, libraries are also drawing attack. The front page of the ALA newly-released report for 2024 headlines the top ten most challenged books of 2024, and 'Censorship by the Numbers.' Inside, the report notes that 72% of book challenges come either from pressure groups and officials who have been swayed by them. ALA also reports that 38% of challenges are made to school libraries and 55% in public libraries.
The United States Naval Academy has just removed 381 books from its library, most either about race, diversity, or gender identity. In Idaho, HB 710 was passed last year, exposing libraries to legal action if they failed to keep children away from 'adult access only' book areas. The law forced at least one library to become 'adults only' because they lacked the space and facilities to create a separate children's area.
The trend of reading restrictions is being met by another trend--lawsuits to push back, and in many cases the plaintiffs include major book publishers.
In Florida, parents, authors and six major book publishers have sued state and school district officials over the state's restriction of any material with 'sexual content" without consideration for the work's literary value; plaintiffs argue this has led to the removal of classic works by Maya Angelou, Leo Tolstoy, Aldous Huxley, and Toni Morrison, among others. The suit argues the restrictions are a violation of the First Amendment, saying, 'The right to speak and the right to read are inextricably intertwined. Authors have the right to communicate their ideas to students without undue interference from the government. Students have a corresponding right to receive those ideas.'
Challenges have also been mounted by coalitions of parents, authors and publishers in Iowa and in Idaho, where Donnelly Public Library, the 'adults only' library, is part of the suit.
One of the publishers involved in these suits is MacMillan Publishers, whose CEO Jon Yaged spoke to me about the company's involvement.
Yaged says, 'We think we're fighting for Democracy as well as our business,' and argues that as a society, we get the best results from conversation, which requires the open flow of ideas that books provide.
Yaged sees a problem with laws and local rules that are 'very arbitrary,' broad, and vague. 'We've seen books banned because of a single sentence, or a detail such as two people holding hands.' Details like 'a simple kiss on the cheek' do not strike him as 'sexual content.' He argues that 'you might think differently, but you've got to read the book.' The vagueness, he argues, also leads to an awful lot of self-editing, because one doesn't know what the rules actually prohibit.
While some commenters (like Shirin Ali at The Hill) have argued that banning books actually increases sales, Yaged says that is 'absolutely not' the case. 'Once in a while a book might get a bump, but by and large it is hurting the sales, especially as these laws start to have a criminal component.'
Yaged noted that many libraries across the country's many school districts are operating under policies that aren't even public knowledge. To respond to them is 'incredibly time consuming, labor-intensive work, but we have no choice but to do it.'
Why should these publishers get involved in book ban battles across the country? 'I think you have no choice,' says Yaged. 'It's part of being a citizen. Reading is a fundamental skill. It's a foundational skill for being able to function in democracy. You need to have information; you need to be able to analyze that information.'
MacMillan is among the many members of the American Association of Publishers involved in other similar lawsuits to push back on book banning.
National Library Week will include a variety of celebrations 'highlighting the valuable role libraries, librarians, and library workers play in transforming lives and strengthening our communities,' but the work defending that work in a court of law will continue well beyond these seven days.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Protesters and journalists are barred from the outside of immigration court. Is it legal?
Activists and journalists gathered outside a federal immigration court in late May to do what they always do. The activists wanted to help migrants attending hearings know their legal rights, chastise immigration officers and show resistance to deportation efforts. Reporters wanted to bear witness, interview sources and share stories with the world about what was happening. Usually, assembling outside a court to protest, observe or report would be no problem. But May 21, private security told photojournalists and activists to leave the property. Phoenix police issued the same warning to activists May 28, and said they could get cited for trespassing — a criminal violation. By early June, a rope was installed to keep the public off the property, and "No Trespassing" signs were installed. That's because the immigration court isn't in a federal facility — it's in a private office building. Police officers said the landlord of the building had asked for people to leave if they did not have immediate business on the property. Advocates like Ricardo Reyes, the lead Arizona organizer for Common Defense, a veterans organization that defends migrants, were confused. He wondered: Since the courthouse is taxpayer funded, shouldn't the taxpaying public be given access and allowed to assemble outside? As of June 3, Phoenix police said the landlord had called three times to complain about trespassers but that no citations were issued. The effects of the warnings, however, were immediate. The advocates left the property and moved to a sidewalk along Van Buren Street. It was on the north side of the building, away from the entrance, which made connecting with migrants impossible. Activists continued to walk onto the private plaza, though, particularly when ICE made arrests. Reporters attending the hearings continued without restriction. But photographers and videographers, who aren't allowed in immigration courtrooms anyway, took to the sidewalk like the activists. Their ability to capture images of individuals entering the building was blocked. The First Amendment protects the public's right to assemble and the press's ability to report the news. But experts say the legal rights in this circumstance are extremely foggy. The fact the government doesn't own the land brings a host of complications. Plus, the right of the public to access immigration hearings isn't clear cut. "Right now, it's not all that clear because of the oddity of how this is all managed. Where the government's rights take over versus the landlord's rights, versus the other tenants' rights," Gregg Leslie, executive director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, said. Sign up for The Republic's American Border newsletter to get the latest immigration news every Thursday. The public's right to be somewhere, called "right of access," depends largely on whether land is public or private, Leslie said. The difficulty in this situation is that the government courtroom is on the third floor of a privately owned building with other tenants. While the public has a right to public land, that right doesn't exist on private land. But it can get more complex. "If it's private land owned for public access, there are certain allowances for there being greater public access to it," Leslie said. To that end, Leslie said it was "hard to believe" the plaza outside the building would be treated as private property, considering the public must have permission to walk through it on the way to court. Lease agreements might spell out how such circumstances should play out, Leslie said. The Arizona Republic requested but has not obtained the lease agreement. When The Republic called the Phoenix Immigration Court, the operator said she was not authorized to answer the question and hung up on the reporter. The U.S. Justice Department, the agency that houses immigration courts, directed questions from The Republic about why the court was inside a private building to the General Services Administration. The GSA, which manages federal government leases, said the government leases private property when "leasing is the only practical answer to meeting Federal space needs." In other words, leases are used when the existing federal property doesn't have space. In Phoenix, the federal buildings are downtown at 1st Avenue and Monroe Street, and 5th Avenue and Washington Street. The leasing company, Transwestern Real Estate Services, did not respond to questions from The Republic. Further clouding the public's ability to understand their rights are different interpretations for different parts of the building. Someone's right to be in the plaza versus the lobby or the third floor all varies depending on whether the space is considered "a traditional public forum," Leslie said. That means an area traditionally open to political speech and debate. Another challenge to the public's right to assemble or report at immigration court is there is no established First Amendment-based right of access, Leslie said. A typical federal courtroom is considered an Article III Court, meaning it was established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution and is thus subject to the First Amendment. "There is a right of access to those courts. You have a right to be there. You can be shut out, but (the government) has to overcome your presumption of a right to be there," Leslie said. But immigration courts, by contrast, are administrative. They're created by law and the same level of protections aren't applied. "Right after 9/11, there were fights over whether immigration courts had to be open, and two of the federal circuits came out differently, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear it," Leslie said. That lack of resolution has left the legal community in limbo. ASU's First Amendment Clinic is currently working on guidance trying to clarify what rights do and do not apply to immigration court. At the end of May, immigrants in Phoenix were seeing the government dismiss their case, only to turn around and immediately arrest them again — this time using expedited removal. That's a process that allows for deportation without a hearing. Advocates thought migrants deserved a warning, and went to offer help. "The people that are showing up are showing up in good faith. They have no idea they might get picked up by ICE as soon as their hearing is over, and they're not going to be able ... to have their families waiting for them at home," Reyes from Common Defense said. His group encouraged migrants to get attorneys, and told them about options such as requesting an extension for their case, or an appeal if their case was dismissed. The group also offered to accompany individuals, some of whom Reyes said were scared. But none of that was possible, he said, when they were shuffled to the sidewalk away from the building entrance. Reporters, including those at The Arizona Republic, have attended immigration court hearings intermittently for years as part of ongoing news coverage. The coverage serves myriad purposes, such as showing the public how government is carrying out President Donald Trump's deportation agenda. The information is meant to equip the public so they can make informed decisions. Disallowing photo and video reporters on-site has hindered the ability to show everything that's happening there. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Reporters, protesters barred from outside of Arizona immigration court
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from detaining a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident whom federal agents have targeted for deportation after she took part in an anti-Israel demonstration earlier this year. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald's preliminary injunction on Thursday blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from taking 21-year-old Yunseo Chung into custody. Chung is originally from South Korea and has lived in the U.S. since she was seven years old. ICE had attempted to arrest her in March but were unsuccessful and the court has now barred ICE from detaining her without prior approval. Federal Judge Blocks Detention Of Columbia Anti-israel Protester Yunseo Chung If the government tries to detain Chung for any reason other than her potential deportation, it must give 72 hours' notice to Chung's lawyers and the court and allow the court time to determine if the detention attempt is a pretext for First Amendment retaliation. The ruling also states that she remains free while her legal case proceeds. Read On The Fox News App Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR, a legal nonprofit at City University of New York that is representing Chung, praised the ruling. "This is a win not just for Yunseo and for the legions of people who stand up for Palestinians and oppose the daily atrocities in Gaza that our government underwrites, but also for freedom of speech and the rule of law in our country," Kassem said in a statement, per the Washington Post. It comes after the same judge in March ordered immigration officials to cease their efforts to arrest Chung. The Trump administration has alleged that her participation in a protest poses a potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequence for the United States. Columbia Faculty Hold 'Emergency Vigil' To Protest University Response To Trump Chung's attorneys say that the government's pursuit of the Columbia student is an "unjustifiable assault on [the] First Amendment." Chung sued the government earlier this year. The lawsuit states that Chung was a participant in the anti-Israel protests, not a leader, and was "one of a large group of college students" expressing "shared concerns" over the war in Gaza. Chung, according to the lawsuit, "visited" the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, a number of tents organized in the center of campus, but does not state whether she stayed there. The lawsuit also makes it clear that she did not make public statements or engage in high-profile activities while at the protests. Chung's lawsuit states that she was never arrested or disciplined in relation to events at the encampment. However, she was later arrested during a 2025 protest at Barnard College. The lawsuit claims that it is common in New York City for police to arrest many protesters and that charges are usually dropped or dismissed. The lawsuit states that on March 8, an ICE official signed an administrative arrest warrant for Chung and federal law enforcement went to Chung's parents' house the next day seeking to arrest her. An ICE official allegedly told Chung's attorneys on March 10 that her green card had been "revoked," according to the lawsuit. The government has the authority to rescind permanent resident status if it believes that a person has violated U.S. immigration law. Chung's attorneys say in the lawsuit that law enforcement searched Chung's dorm room on March 13 in accordance with a warrant. She was valedictorian of her high school senior class and has a near-perfect GPA heading into her senior year, according to court documents. Chung is double-majoring in English and women's and gender studies at Columbia, the Washington Post reported. The Trump administration has also sought to deport former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, whom it accuses of playing a major role in anti-Israel protests at Columbia article source: Federal judge again blocks deportation of anti-Israel Columbia protester
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Federal jduge blocks Trump administration Harvard student ban
June 6 (UPI) -- A federal judge temporarily paused President Donald Trump's ban on foreign nationals coming to study, teach, or do research at Harvard University, pending a hearing later in June. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs' ruling Thursday night came after Harvard filed a suit in Boston alleging Trump's proclamation, issued a day earlier, was unlawful because it violated the First Amendment. Burroughs said she was granting Harvard's motion for a restraining order against the Homeland Security Department, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Justice Department, State Department and the Student and Exchange Visitor Program after accepting Harvard's claim that it would otherwise "sustain immediate and irreparable injury before there was an opportunity to hear from all parties." The motion was in a hastily amended complaint by Harvard after Trump on Wednesday suspended entry of all foreign nationals "who enter or attempt to enter the United States to begin attending Harvard," and directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider cancelling the visas of foreigners already there. She said the court would reconvene on June 16 for a full hearing on whether Trump's proclamation is legal. Burroughs' order also extended through June 20 a temporary restraining order she issued May 23, preventing DHS from implementing a ban on Harvard sponsoring holders of F-1 and J-1 non-immigrant visas, something the university has been permitted to do for more than seven decades. The school's legal team argued Wednesday's proclamation was an effort to get around this restraining order. "The proclamation simply reflects the administration's effort to accomplish the very result that the Court sought to prevent. The Court should not stand for that," Harvard's legal counsel alleged in court filings. Harvard has maintained that the orders represent executive overreach, while Trump insists there is a national security risk posed by its foreign students. The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard water down its diversity, equality and inclusion policies in hiring and admissions, beef up enforcement of anti-Semitism measures on campus following anti-Gaza war protests and hand over the records of its international students. Trump's proclamation stated that the step was in the national interest because he believed Harvard's refusal to share "information that the federal government requires to safeguard national security and the American public" showed it was not suitable for foreign nationals. In April, Trump cancelled more than $2 billion in federal funding that the university receives and threatened to remove its tax-exemption status and ability to enroll overseas students. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Hill that Harvard's lawsuit was a bid to "kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers" to suspend entry to the country of persons whose presence was not in line with national interests. "It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments," McLaughlin said. "The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side."
