桃子视频

DALLAS 鈥� The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of Texas filed an amicus brief today in Little v. Llano County, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to protect the public鈥檚 right to access diverse books and ideas at public libraries. This will be the first time an appeals court will decide what First Amendment standard governs the removal of books from public library shelves.

鈥淚f courts allow government officials to pull books out of public libraries in order to impose a government-approved set of views, they're opening a Pandora's box of censorship,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e're urging the Fifth Circuit to recognize that allowing politically-motivated book removals would fundamentally distort the nature and function of public libraries.鈥�

Little v. Llano County challenges Llano County officials鈥� unlawful removal of 17 books from their public library system. In August 2021, local residents asked the Llano County library commissioner to remove certain children鈥檚 books they viewed as 鈥渙bscene鈥� and 鈥減ornographic鈥� from the library鈥檚 shelves. These included various kids books about 鈥渂utts and farts,鈥� as well as award-winning books by acclaimed authors like Maurice Sendak鈥檚 鈥淚n the Night Kitchen,鈥� 鈥淐aste鈥� by Isabel Wilkerson, and Robie H. Harris鈥� 鈥淚t鈥檚 Perfectly Normal.鈥� Not only did the commissioner order the librarians to comply, but in January 2022, the existing library board was dissolved, a new board with the residents who spearheaded the book removals was appointed, and the libraries were temporarily closed to scour the shelves and remove any book the board deemed 鈥渋nappropriate.鈥�

The ACLU's brief argues that while librarians necessarily have broad discretion in selecting books, including on the basis of their content, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from removing books in an effort to suppress particular viewpoints or impose a political orthodoxy. As the brief explains, 鈥淎 Democratic governor could not order the removal of all library books advocating 'Republican' ideals, nor could a predominantly Jewish city council ban all copies of the New Testament to impose a single religious view.鈥� The brief contends that such removals indisputably violate the First Amendment, as well as the core purpose of public libraries as spaces for free inquiry and exploration of diverse ideas.

鈥淏anning books violates the First Amendment and threatens our democracy, says Adriana Pi帽on, legal director of the 桃子视频of Texas. 鈥淚n this case Texas and other states are asking the Fifth Circuit to allow politicians to freely censor books they dislike with no constitutional limit. We urge the court to reject that dangerous position. Our public libraries should reflect the voices and identities of every person in our state, and not just the beliefs of certain state politicians.鈥�

This case comes amid a surge in book challenges and removals nationwide, with the American Library Association reporting a record number of attempted book bans in 2023.