Photo credit: www.publishersweekly.com
In Escambia County, Florida, the legal battle surrounding the removal of the 2005 picture book And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson has intensified, with both sides filing motions for summary judgment. The case has attracted considerable attention due to its implications on book censorship and LGBTQ+ representation in educational materials.
The authors filed a lawsuit in June 2023 contesting the book’s removal, claiming it was based on unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination” due to its depiction of a same-sex relationship between two male penguins. They assert that the motivations behind the removal were influenced by anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, particularly after Florida’s recent legislative actions against LGBTQ+ rights. The lawsuit emphasizes that the removal cannot be justified under the First Amendment, as it specifically targets a viewpoint related to sexual orientation.
The defendants, represented by Escambia County officials, argue that they have the authority to make decisions about library collections. Their defense hinges on the notion that selecting which books remain in the library is considered “government speech” and thus not subject to the same First Amendment requirements that govern private speech. The defense maintains that educational institutions should have the latitude to promote specific values and policies without needing to comply with viewpoint-neutrality.
This legal dispute reflects broader national conversations around book banning, especially in relation to Title IX legislation and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. The authors draw attention to neighboring Nassau County, which recently settled a similar case by agreeing to return the book to library shelves, stating it contained no obscene materials. This settlement brings into question the rationale behind Escambia County’s decision.
Despite resistance, the “government speech” argument used by the defendants is reminiscent of other high-profile cases that have struggled to find legal footing. Even a recent case in Iowa was impacted by this defense, which highlights a national trend of book banning motivated by perceived challenges to established societal norms.
Judge Allen Winsor has signaled that he may be open to the defendants’ argument regarding government speech. However, he has also pointed out the necessity for a trial on the merits, stating that a definitive interpretation of the law is needed. The ambiguity surrounding whether school libraries serve as forums for private expression complicates the case further.
The legal landscape continues to shift, with another closely watched case, Little v. Llano County in Texas, also grappling with the government speech doctrine. As solutions to book banning evolve, Escambia County faces ongoing scrutiny, especially in light of another lawsuit concerning broader patterns of censorship aimed at books by authors from marginalized communities. This other case points to a significant counter-narrative: plaintiffs argue that the school administration disproportionately targets literature addressing race and LGBTQ+ themes.
Additionally, recent actions by Florida state attorneys to dismiss a lawsuit challenging provisions of HB 1069 demonstrate the contentious atmosphere around school library regulations. This law, which mandates the removal of books that include sexual content, is criticized for its role in exacerbating the decline of available literature in educational settings.
Source
www.publishersweekly.com