This week is marks the 30th anniversary of Banned Books Week, an annual event that celebrates the freedom to read and calls attention to the wealth of creative expression that is stifled when books can be barred from library shelves. The 老澳门开奖结果 has always believed that our country functions best when citizens exercise their right to freely explore the world around them, and, we鈥檒l be blogging about banned books and censorship all week. Join the conversation using .
Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book, as long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency. That should be the only censorship.
鈥� President Dwight D. Eisenhower, commencement address at Dartmouth College, June 14, 1953
Seventeen years ago this week, cooperating lawyers recruited by the were doing battle for the First Amendment in a major trial over the Olathe, Kansas School District鈥檚 removal of Nancy Garden鈥檚 award-winning young adult novel from all of the District鈥檚 school libraries. Annie on My Mind depicts a fictional romantic relationship between two teenage girls. After a four-day bench trial, a federal district judge ruled that the Superintendent and the members of the Board of Education had removed the novel from the school libraries 鈥渂ecause they disagreed with ideas expressed in the book and . . . [thus] intended to deny students in the Olathe School District access to those ideas.鈥� (You can read the opinion in that case 鈥� Case v. Unified School Dist. No. 233, 908 F.Supp. 864, 876 (D. Kan. 1995) 鈥� ). The court鈥檚 decision was a ringing victory for the First Amendment rights of students to receive diverse ideas and information free from the clutches of censorious school officials.
Since then, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Kansas & Western Missouri has fought library censorship on a regular basis with mixed results. For instance, in 2005, we encouraged the Blue Valley School District鈥檚 Board of Education (in suburban Kansas City) to reject a parent group鈥檚 petition to remove the following fourteen acclaimed books from the District鈥檚 curriculum: , , , , , , , , , , One Flew Over the Cuckoo鈥檚 Nest, , , and This Boy鈥檚 Life. In August 2005, the District announced that it would keep in the curriculum and would keep all of the books in its school libraries. Based on a District curriculum review process, school officials decided to drop Tobias Wolff鈥檚 This Boy's Life and Walter Dean Myers鈥� Fallen Angels because a review committee decided they were no longer the best fit for the curriculum. Although the parent group had challenged all of the books based on claims of 鈥渋ndecency,鈥� the District鈥檚 director of curriculum and instruction said that no titles were removed because of violence, language, or sexual content.
In the last couple of years, we have tried but failed to stop efforts to remove books from school libraries in Stockton and Republic, Missouri. In both cases, the censors successfully advocated for removals of acclaimed literary works based on selective readings of the 鈥渄irty parts.鈥�
In 2010, the Stockton School Board to remove Sherman Alexie鈥檚 award-winning novel, , because its teenage protagonist was dealing with his parents鈥� alcoholism on an Indian Reservation in Eastern Washington and with his own sexual awakening. The book offers positive messages of personal responsibility and resisting peer pressure, but those positive themes could not withstand the censors鈥� shrieks of outrage based on out-of-context quotations of the novel鈥檚 allegedly salacious details. Although we were interested in litigating the removal of the Alexi novel, the parents and teachers who spoke up against removal before the vote feared retaliation and would not agree to act as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against this rural school district.
Last year at this time, we 鈥� along with many coalition partners 鈥� were engaged in a heated battle to try to stop the Republic School Board from removing Kurt Vonnegut鈥檚 Slaughterhouse-Five and Sarah Ockler鈥檚 Twenty Boy Summer from the high school curriculum and library. The Board eventually from the high school鈥檚 curriculum and library in response to complaints filed by Wesley Scroggins, a local resident and Missouri State University business professor. In published in the Springfield News-Leader after the removal of Slaughterhouse-Five but before the removal of Twenty Boy Summer, Scroggins explained that he objected to Slaughterhouse-Five because it 鈥渃ontains so much profane language, it would make a sailor blush with shame,鈥� and to Twenty Boy Summer because of its sexual content. Scroggins advocated additional removals of books with these closing words: 鈥淗ow can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality? Parents, it is time you get involved!鈥� Although our coalition鈥檚 efforts failed to get the books back in the high school鈥檚 library, the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library sent 150 copies of the novel to students in the District, and the Republic Public Library reported a waiting list of patrons wanting to read Vonnegut鈥檚 great anti-war novel. Thus, the censors may have won the battle, but they lost the war.
And you can be sure that the 鈥� as well as 老澳门开奖结果 affiliates around the country 鈥� will continue to defend the freedom to read for many years to come.
Learn more about banned book week: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.