Latest news with #BeingJazz
Wall Street Journal
30-05-2025
- General
- Wall Street Journal
No More Library Police in Texas
If a public library culls children's books that have drawn complaints—such as 'Larry the Farting Leprechaun' and 'Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen'—do local fans of Larry and Jazz have a First Amendment case? In a decision last summer, a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals welcomed such lawsuits, with two judges volunteering themselves for the job of library police. Good news: The entire Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed that decision last week. Ten of 17 judges held that a public library's removal of books from circulation doesn't implicate its patrons' 'right to receive information.'
Newsweek
30-05-2025
- General
- Newsweek
Censors Allowed to Remove Books From Libraries, Court Rules
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal appeals court has ruled that public library officials may remove books from shelves based on their content, the latest development in an ongoing national debate over censorship and free speech. On May 23, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling that said the removal of books based on their content likely violated patrons' First Amendment right to access information. Why It Matters The ruling marks a significant shift in the legal interpretation of First Amendment protections in public libraries, which have long been considered bastions of free expression. By granting library officials powers to remove books they deem inappropriate or ideologically objectionable, the Fifth Circuit has potentially empowered local governments to suppress certain ideas from public access. What To Know The case stems from a dispute in Llano County, Texas, where officials removed 17 books from the public library system in 2021 after receiving complaints from residents. The titles included books about the history of racism in the U.S., such as They Called Themselves the K.K.K.; a sex-education book for preteens; and books with LGBTQ+ themes, including Being Jazz by transgender activist Jazz Jennings. The list also includes a series of children's books with titles such as I Broke My Butt! and Larry the Farting Leprechaun. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022. Books at the Rice University Library in Houston on April 26, 2022.A group of residents sued, arguing that removing the books was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. A district court agreed, ordering officials to return the books to library shelves. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed that ruling in a 10–7 decision. Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in a 60-page majority opinion that "plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library's removal of books." He contended that libraries' collections were "for expressive purposes," meaning "their collection decisions are therefore government speech." The ruling goes against past interpretations of Supreme Court precedent, which have broadly protected against viewpoint-based censorship in libraries. What People Are Saying Elly Brinkley, PEN America's attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs, said in a statement: "This astounding decision reveals either ignorance of the scale and danger of state censorship or deliberate indifference toward it. The record clearly shows that the government removed books based on politically-motivated viewpoint discrimination—a violation of constitutionally protected rights. "The court's embrace of the dangerous argument that the curation of library books constitutes 'government speech' immunizes state censorship from First Amendment scrutiny, essentially giving the government free rein to exert ideological control over what citizens can read in their public libraries." What Happens Next The Fifth Circuit's decision is binding in the states over which it has jurisdiction: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. However, the plaintiffs are expected to appeal the ruling, potentially setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court review that could define the future of content regulation in libraries across the country.
