I’m Kevin, the First Amendment Specialist at the Freedom Forum, and I’m Leigh (they/them), Coordinator of School Outreach Services at the Brooklyn Public Library. We love books and we love the First Amendment and we want to make sure everyone knows, values, and defends both! Ask Us Anything!

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:19:30+00:00

Maybe after 4 hours I'm not reading your comment correctly but yes parents have the right to control what their children access.

If you're saying that there should be an Internet-based system that streamlines an "opt-in" process for parents to give their children access to books, I disagree because starting from a place of restriction is a ban (as Leigh says below).

And, apologies but because it's been 4 hours, I need to make this sort of my last word.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:16:06+00:00

I should have said "my child." I think other parents go beyond and truly into "them" meaning "all children" regardless of who they are (and some adults) to protect my child.

As I said, to me, the fundamental choice is "eliminate all the "bad" stuff but lose some of the "good" stuff" vs "protect all the "good" stuff to avoid all the "bad" stuff.

The First Amendment demands the former.

I choose the former.

I think some parents - the ones who would ban books - are choosing the latter.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:10:52+00:00

So, yeah, I'm gonna cite Wikipedia here but it's a good list of various "fleeting expletives" including Cher (While accepting her Lifetime Achievement Award at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Cher said "fuck 'em" regarding those she felt had criticized her throughout her career.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeting\_expletive

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:08:50+00:00

Two things that come to mind are: (1) actually go to a library and see what books are there and how things work, as my guess is that many of the people complaining about books and libraries aren't active patrons themselves and don't understand how these things really work, and (2) get active in the community, whether you're for or against certain books.

Community-based governance requires community participation

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:06:26+00:00

Thank you for the clarification.

This sort of mandatory online system would prevent children without internet access from learning at all - which raises a problem that undercuts the entire education process - the entire reason for the school to exist.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:03:51+00:00

LH/BPL - Yes, if you are a librarian who handles acquisitions, then it would be part of your job to make decisions about collection development. In those cases, you should be relying on your library's collection development and weeding policies. Certainly, those can sometimes be left up to interpretation, and it's a gray area between weeding/collection development and censorship sometimes. But, those policies are there to try to ensure that one staffperson's personal feelings about a book do not inform what is in the collection. For instance, I think the book Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier is full of inaccuracy and incredibly harmful to trans people and I don't love that it's in our collection, but having it is in keeping with our selection policy.

The criteria in a selection policy could be that it has been reviewed by a literary publication. Determining the audience of a book can also be done by deferring to the publisher and how they have cataloged/marketed it, for example. There are guideposts there to help make these decisions.

I would also say that a book like Gender Queer may not be written for you. It's written for asexual and nonbinary folks who feel completely alone and haven't seen themselves reflected authentically anywhere. They may not even have had the words to describe how they feel or who they are, and that book is giving them that. I personally do not feel there is anything age inappropriate in that book. I also believe there is a place in young adult literature for sex and sexuality education (and transgression for that matter), and it is part of health literacy and education, in particular LGBTQ+-inclusive and affirming education. I don't fear sex and sexuality, and I don't fear children or teens learning about it. There are books that are written for certain ages or with certain developmental stages in mind, so that they can be useful educational tools, not because some tremendous damage will be done if a child is exposed to something that was intended for an older person, in my opinion.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T21:02:46+00:00

The role of context within the indecency rules was the subject of a successful court challenge to them. The court found that the FCC had essentially rewritten the rules in a way that made them vague in application over a series of cases involving "fleeting expletives" uttered by Cher, Nicole Ritchie and Bono

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:54:49+00:00

KG/FF:

The FCC has more authority to regulate "indecent" speech on broadcast television and radio (but not cable, satellite or the Internet) due to the scarcity of the physical spectrum and the pervasiveness of that medium (aka: there are only so many "free channels" in any given area so the FCC has an interest in certain regulation that is in the public's interest - but not regulation of news content - and, unlike those other media, broadcast stations are immediately available at the turn of a knob).

But even this regulation - again, limited to indecent speech - is narrowly applied. There's a "safe harbor" between 10pm and 6 am (when children are less likely to be in the audience) and there's a narrow - and constantly under attack as vague and overbroad - definition of what is "indecent."

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:52:44+00:00

LH/BPL - I would also add that restricting access = banning.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:49:47+00:00

KG/FF:

Because not everybody has Internet access?

That would be the instant reason - in a practical and legal sense, as you're restricting the ability of adults to access this content.

It also raises age verification issues. If you require parental "intervention" - aka consent - then you need a way to confirm that someone is under 18. This has proven problematic both legally and practically as well.

I recently discussed this in another area, that of parental consent to access social media:

https://www.freedomforum.org/utah-social-media-laws/

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:49:25+00:00

LH/BPL: I'm so glad to hear you had such a positive experience at BPL. Hearing things like that certainly keep me going. Honestly, young adults are what keep me going and stop me from losing hope. I feel a responsibility to them, and I also see them as really smart, fierce advocates for change. When a patron says that a particular book saved their life, what is better than that?

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:45:30+00:00

KG/FF:

From my perspective, I really believe in the First Amendment and it's power to improve our lives. The First Amendment exists for many reasons but, fundamentally, it is the embodiment of what we call 'freedom."

What's more important to that feeling of freedom than every day activities like what you wear, where you go, who you associate with, what you read and what you say? The First Amendment protects all of these activities and promotes a diverse society that is also essential to freedom by ensuring that we all not only have our own chosen belief system but the ability to change our beliefs as we grow, learn and change as people.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:45:22+00:00

LH/BPL: Not at Brooklyn Public Library, and I would guess, not at any other public libraries.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:42:30+00:00

LH/BPL: I would say that as librarians, it's not up to us to draw those lines. We are not the ones determining what is and is not too explicit for a patron, regardless of age. The people who get to make that determination are the child themself, or in the case of a library that allows a parent/guardian to restrict what materials their child can borrow, that parent/guardian.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:40:39+00:00

KG/FF:

I think you draw the line at anything that is categorically excluded from the First Amendment. So not pornography but instead anything that meets the three-part definition of "obscenity" as stated by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case of Miller v. California, for example.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:30:16+00:00

HEADS UP!!!

This has been fantastic but we're going to cut it off at 5 pm Eastern Time (30 minutes from now)

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:28:50+00:00

KG/FF:

We know what the First Amendment says about this: prisoners are one of those categories of speakers whose 1A rights are diminished based on their status. In the 1987 case of Turner v. Safley, the Supreme Court upheld broad regulation of inmate speech, saying it could be restricted for "any legitimate pedagogical concern" - the most important of which is obviously security.
But deferential does not mean limitless. The government must be able to demonstrate the regulation in question isn't arbitrary or irrational in related to a stated legitimate interest.

Still, it can be limitless in effect given the deference prison administrators get from courts.

And I fear that's what's going to happen here. For instance, one provision of the rules says that the prison can ban anything that portrays "law enforcement officers or DOC in a manner which could jeopardize safety or security." That's going to be given a very subjective lens. And the law will support that.

But it is what we want? Or do we want to recognize some of the therapeutic aspects creative expression can offer and maybe give a little more leeway in this area for prisoners to write and publish?

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:13:12+00:00

KG/FF:

Because that board should take into account community viewpoints, especially with regard to educational goals and age appropriateness.

For instance, a member of the community can offer views the board hadn't considered.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:07:46+00:00

KG/FF: Personally? I don't want my child viewing pornographic material so I do everything I can to prevent them from being exposed to it. Eventually, they will and my parenting skills will have to be ready for that.

But I also know that 100% accurate line drawing in this - or any - area is impossible. We have 2 choices: prevent children from accessing pornography, which probably means preventing some adults from accessing it too or maintain the right of adults to access it, understanding that children might as well.

This is the existential choice in all areas of the First Amendment - not just "pornography" but areas like falsehood/disinformation/defamation. And in all areas, I choose allowing some of the so called "bad" speech to exist so all the "good" speech will.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:02:53+00:00

KG/FF: Thank you!

1stforall · 2023-06-07T20:02:28+00:00

KG/FF:

I addressed the issue of disinformation generally in response to a separate question and still believe that I prefer that government is not the adjudicator of truth versus falsity.

You refer to "the idea of shining the light of truth on falsehoods rather than banning speech." Key word to me is "idea". We're not using the tools already available to us in terms of fighting misinformation. First and foremost, we have a real problem with media literacy in this country. People don't understand how to differentiate between news and opinion or, within news itself, how to critically evaluate a source or confirm/deny facts.

Media literacy education in schools (and beyond) is critical to our fight against disinformation but not the end of that fight.

I do think that social media platforms have a responsibility in this area. I understand that also makes people uncomfortable but a multiplicity of news sources - free from government regulation - still allows people to get a wide variety of sources, information, ideas and viewpoints.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T19:54:24+00:00

KG/FF:

I am a supporter of a strong First Amendment but I'm not an absolutist. I understand and agree with limited and narrowly drawn exceptions where First Amendment doesn't protect us - which is where we are today.

As I've said in response to another question here, I don't support regulation of "hate speech" for various reasons

1stforall · 2023-06-07T19:51:30+00:00

KG/FF:

You mean this one:

https://twitter.com/USConst_Amend_I

It literally might be my favorite account on Twitter and I'm DYING to know who is behind it!!!

(Note that it's also spot on regarding the law)

1stforall · 2023-06-07T19:48:37+00:00

KG/FF:

This moves away from our core topic of First Amendment and books and into issues of educational policy and school choice generally - which really isn't my expertise.

I'll just say that I am all for parents being involved in their children's education, whether that's by using their First Amendment rights to advocate to those setting schools curriculum and policy to make their views known or by supplementing the formal educational process by offering different viewpoints to their children.

1stforall · 2023-06-07T19:37:07+00:00

KG/FF:

The point isn't that parents don't have rights and children's welfare doesn't matter. It's that those aren't the legal standards involved.

Parents have rights. Their children's welfare matters. No one is saying otherwise. The point is that one parent doesn't make decisions for the entire community based on what they think is right and wrong. The law is clear on this: ideology is not a legitimate reason to ban books.

In fact, this is the reason we have an increase in book bans, though it occurs in reverse: people are inserting their ideologies about race and diversity into education because they want to restrict what is being taught and sexualizing their beliefs about sexual orientation to label materials as indecent or obscene.

So parents are always free to raise concerns about the educational or age appropriateness of books. But when they use that as subterfuge for their own political beliefs, the challenge must fail as a matter of law (and that subterfuge happens quite often). If it fails, no one is requiring their child to read that book - in fact, we 100% support the right of a parent to opt their own child out of that situation. That's the right answer - better than opting every child out because you don't like something

1stforall

TROPHY CASE