Florida bill to ban books from schools over ‘sexual content' threatens literary classics
These are not fringe books. And yet, under the proposed House Bill 1539, now advancing in the Florida legislature, these titles could be removed from public school libraries and classrooms after little more than a formal complaint by a single person because they include sexual content.
HB 1539 proposes a sweeping and rigid overhaul of how books are evaluated in Florida's public schools, defining those that may be challenged for being 'harmful to minors.'
According to the bill's wording, that means any book containing 'depiction of nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement... patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole.'
HB 1539 proposes a sweeping and rigid overhaul of how books are evaluated in Florida's public schools. If a book in a school is challenged as 'harmful to minors,' districts would be required to permanently remove the book, regardless of its educational value, cultural relevance or historical significance. The bill expressly forbids any consideration of a work's literary and artistic merit as a whole.
Even foundational books, like the ones above, could be removed from public schools based on isolated scenes or language. One frivolous complaint will be all it takes to ban books, ignoring their context and complexity.
Lawmakers should think carefully before making it even easier for censorship to spread.
Policies like this have long been exploited by a loud few and those eager to turn personal morality into public restriction. These measures are used to ban books from classrooms and libraries, often without a transparent review or meaningful public input.
The bill effectively guts the third prong of the 'Miller test,' the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), which protects works, taken as a whole, with serious literary or artistic value, from being labeled 'obscene.' That safeguard has protected important books from being labeled obscene for decades.
By narrowing what is considered acceptable in Florida, this bill invites confusion, weakens First Amendment protections and opens the door to costly legal battles over free expression, which will fall squarely on Florida taxpayers.
Let's be clear: HB 1539 threatens to sever the thread between students and textually rich literature. It reduces sophisticated narratives to flattened singular passages, ignoring the breadth and power a story can offer when taken as a whole.
By rejecting the holistic evaluation of books, this bill undermines a key foundation of both literary expression and public education. This bill sidelines inquiry in favor of control. It does not protect knowledge; it restricts it. It does not enliven thought; it narrows it.
PEN America has urged Florida lawmakers to reject HB 1539, warning that it endangers students' First Amendment rights and undermines the foundation of our public education system and academic freedom.
The bill's new definition of 'harmful to minors' diverges sharply from constitutional standards. If passed, HB 1539 would likely result in the removal of widely taught and historically significant works from public school libraries and classrooms.
It would deny public school students the chance to engage meaningfully with literature, to grapple with big ideas and gain a deeper appreciation for language and artistic expression.
Our literary canon captures pivotal moments in our shared story and presents a layered portrait of life.
When students are exposed to a wide range of reading materials, they don't just access information; they build cultural understanding and sharpen their imagination.
Protecting access to nuanced works isn't just about saving books; it's about cultivating intellectual and emotional growth for as many as possible.
William Johnson is the director of PEN America's Florida office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
2 days ago
Judge strikes down key parts of Florida law that led to book removal from libraries
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A federal judge has struck down key parts of a Florida law that helped parents get books they found objectionable removed from public school libraries and classrooms. It is a victory for publishers and authors who had sued after their books were removed. U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza in Orlando said in Wednesday's ruling that the statute's prohibition on material that described sexual conduct was overbroad. Mendoza, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said that the state's interpretation of the 2023 law was unconstitutional. Among the books that had been removed from central Florida schools were classics like Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' Richard Wright's 'Native Son' and Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five.' 'Historically, librarians curate their collections based on their sound discretion not based on decrees from on high,' the judge said. 'There is also evidence that the statute has swept up more non-obscene books than just the ones referenced here." After the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the law, school officials worried that any sexual content was questionable, a belief that was enforced by new state training that urged librarians to err on the side of caution. Last year, Florida led the nation with 4,500 removals of school books. Under the judge's ruling, schools should revert back to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the test is whether an average person would find the work prurient as a whole; whether it depicts sexual content in an offensive way; and whether the work lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The lawsuit was brought by some of the nation's largest book publishers and some of the authors whose books had been removed from central Florida school libraries, as well as the parents of schoolchildren who tried to access books that were removed. The author plaintiffs included Angie Thomas, author of 'The Hate U Give"; Jodi Picoult, author of 'My Sister's Keeper"; John Green, author of 'The Fault in Our Stars"; and Julia Alvarez, author of 'How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents.' The publisher plaintiffs included Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing and Simon and Schuster.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge strikes down key parts of Florida law that led to removal of books from school libraries
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge has struck down key parts of a Florida law that helped parents get books they found objectionable removed from public school libraries and classrooms. It is a victory for publishers and authors who had sued after their books were removed. U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza in Orlando said in Wednesday's ruling that the statute's prohibition on material that described sexual conduct was overbroad. Mendoza, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said that the state's interpretation of the 2023 law was unconstitutional. Among the books that had been removed from central Florida schools were classics like Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale,' Richard Wright's 'Native Son' and Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse-Five.' 'Historically, librarians curate their collections based on their sound discretion not based on decrees from on high,' the judge said. 'There is also evidence that the statute has swept up more non-obscene books than just the ones referenced here." After the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed the law, school officials worried that any sexual content was questionable, a belief that was enforced by new state training that urged librarians to err on the side of caution. Last year, Florida led the nation with 4,500 removals of school books. Under the judge's ruling, schools should revert back to a U.S. Supreme Court precedent in which the test is whether an average person would find the work prurient as a whole; whether it depicts sexual content in an offensive way; and whether the work lacks literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The lawsuit was brought by some of the nation's largest book publishers and some of the authors whose books had been removed from central Florida school libraries, as well as the parents of schoolchildren who tried to access books that were removed. The author plaintiffs included Angie Thomas, author of 'The Hate U Give"; Jodi Picoult, author of 'My Sister's Keeper"; John Green, author of 'The Fault in Our Stars"; and Julia Alvarez, author of 'How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents.' The publisher plaintiffs included Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing and Simon and Schuster.
