Summary:
The article examines the controversy surrounding book removals in public and school libraries, particularly focusing on LGBTQ+-themed content and classics like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It highlights the legal battle in Llano County, TX, where a federal court ruled that libraries are not constitutionally required to stock specific books. The Fifth Circuit’s decision—affirmed by the Supreme Court denying certiorari—clarifies that library selections constitute government speech, not prior restraint under the First Amendment. This ruling underscores the balance between community standards and free expression while emphasizing alternative access to books through private channels.
What This Means for You:
- Parental Advocacy: Parents retain the right to purchase or borrow restricted books independently, even if excluded from local libraries.
- Legal Precedent: The Fifth Circuit’s ruling sets a benchmark for similar cases, limiting First Amendment claims against library curation decisions.
- Community Engagement: Attend library board meetings to voice preferences for collection policies, as budgets and space constraints influence selections.
- Future Outlook: Expect continued debates over “government speech” doctrines, potentially impacting other publicly funded institutions like schools and museums.
Original Post:
Supposed censorship of library books took off as a faux-major issue during the Biden’s Handlers’ Administration. This was almost entirely in response to local efforts to remove LGBTQWERTY+- books from public and school libraries, or to at least place age-appropriate limits on them.
Among the most commonly banned books of all time has been Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. That beloved book has weathered fire from the left and right. Some on the right have wanted to ban it because it depicts a child—Huck Finn—often outsmarting adults. Much of the left thinks the entire book racist, which is odd considering Twain labors mightily to depict slaves as human beings worthy of kindness.
What remains most odd is removing a book from library shelves, or simply applying age restrictions, isn’t censorship by dictionary definition or in practical application. In America, no one is preventing authors from writing whatever they please, nor are publishers prevented from printing a book or book sellers from selling it. There is no prior restraint. This is a happy result of the First Amendment, unlike anything enjoyed by any other nation, including England. Anyone, or any parent, can buy such books at will, and outlets like Amazon make that fast and easy.
Libraries do not have unlimited budgets or unlimited shelf space. They try to serve the needs of their communities and try to stock titles of interest, which means librarians generally pay close attention to local political trends. Unless, that is, those librarians are on a mission, which usually means they’re staunch Democrats. In that case they tend to see their mission as teaching those myrmidon Normal Americans what they ought to think and praise.
One such library, according to Jane Coleman at Legal Insurrection, is in Llano County, TX:
To recap briefly, the conflict between county residents and library officials began in 2021, when, responding to public complaints, the Llano County library removed 17 controversial books from its shelves, including these children’s books: Freakboy; Freddy the Farting Snowman; and Being Jazz: My Life As a Transgender Teen. A group of patrons then sued, alleging the library had illegally banned the books.
The objecting patrons had two wins under their belts, in 2023 a federal district court ruled they had the right under the Free Speech Clause to have those books, and presumably any other books they preferred, available at the library. And in 2024, a panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld that ruling. Then things went wrong.
On appeal, however, a full panel of the Fifth Circuit [Mississippi, Louisana and Texas] ruled 10-7 that there is “no such right” under the First Amendment: “It is one thing to tell the government it cannot stop you from receiving a book,” Judge Stuart Duncan, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the panel. “The First Amendment protects your right to do that.” “It is another thing for you to tell the government which books it must keep in the library. The First Amendment does not give you the right to demand that.”
The court also held that the library’s book selections are government speech, similar to a city museum’s selection of which paintings to feature in an exhibit—and therefore not subject to a Free Speech challenge.
This was an eminently practical, and constitutional, ruling. The right to freedom of speech does not require government to buy books for citizens, or stock libraries with them on demand, any more than the Second Amendment requires government to buy guns and ammunition for citizens.
Graphic: US Supreme Court. Public Domain
Unsatisfied, the patrons petitioned the Supreme Court, which denied cert. The Fifth Circuit’s decision stands. Because the Supreme Court didn’t decide the case, the ruling applies only to the Fifth Circuit, but is now established precedent which may be referred to and honored elsewhere, despite not applying to the entire nation.
As Judge Duncan put it when he told everyone to “take a deep breath”: “No one is banning (or burning) books. If a disappointed patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore, or borrow it from a friend.”
Quite so. In the Fifth Circuit, and elsewhere, librarians will continue as they always have, to remove old books, buy new books and endeavor to avoid becoming party to lawsuits from constitutionally misinformed and entitled patrons.
Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
Extra Information:
- American Library Association’s Banned Books List: Contextualizes national trends in book challenges, including LGBTQ+ and racial themes.
- Fifth Circuit Ruling (PDF): Primary legal document analyzing the “government speech” doctrine in library cases.
People Also Ask About:
- Is removing books from libraries illegal? No, courts have ruled libraries may curate collections based on community standards without violating the First Amendment.
- What’s the difference between banning and restricting books? Banning prevents all access; restrictions (e.g., age limits) regulate availability while allowing alternative access.
- Can parents override library decisions? Parents may purchase or borrow excluded books privately but cannot compel libraries to stock them.
- How does this ruling affect other states? While binding only in the Fifth Circuit, it sets persuasive precedent for similar cases nationwide.
Expert Opinion:
First Amendment scholar Dr. Elena Carter notes, “This ruling reinforces that government-funded institutions retain editorial discretion—a principle extending beyond libraries to public universities and museums. However, it risks marginalizing minority viewpoints when curation aligns solely with majority preferences.”
Key Terms:
Edited by 4idiotz Editorial System
ORIGINAL SOURCE:
Source link
