AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal on a Texas free speech case that allowed local officials to remove books deemed objectionable from public libraries.
The case stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit by a group of residents in rural Llano County over the removal from the public library of more than a dozen books dealing with sex, race and gender themes, as well as humorously touching on topics such as flatulence.
A lower federal appeals court had ruled that removing the books did not violate Constitutional free speech protections, a decision that many publishers and librarians across the country closely monitored. The Supreme Court's decision not to consider the case has drawn criticism from free speech rights groups.
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at PEN America, stated, 'Leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place erodes the most elemental principles of free speech and allows state and local governments to exert ideological control over the people with impunity. The government has no place telling people what they can and cannot read.'
The Texas case has already been cited as a basis for banning books in other areas across the nation, heightening concerns about the implications for libraries and the First Amendment. Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, expressed similar concerns, stating that the Supreme Court’s denial threatens to turn government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of open inquiry.
The controversy began when residents petitioned the county library commission to remove particular books which included titles like “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” by Isabel Wilkerson and “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings. Following the federal judge's mid-2023 order to restore the books, the Fifth Circuit court later reversed this decision, allowing for the continued removal of the listed titles.
Critics argue that this ruling undermines the fundamental right to free speech and could set a troubling precedent for censorship nationwide as local governments may feel empowered to remove literature based on ideological grounds.
The case stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit by a group of residents in rural Llano County over the removal from the public library of more than a dozen books dealing with sex, race and gender themes, as well as humorously touching on topics such as flatulence.
A lower federal appeals court had ruled that removing the books did not violate Constitutional free speech protections, a decision that many publishers and librarians across the country closely monitored. The Supreme Court's decision not to consider the case has drawn criticism from free speech rights groups.
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at PEN America, stated, 'Leaving the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in place erodes the most elemental principles of free speech and allows state and local governments to exert ideological control over the people with impunity. The government has no place telling people what they can and cannot read.'
The Texas case has already been cited as a basis for banning books in other areas across the nation, heightening concerns about the implications for libraries and the First Amendment. Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, expressed similar concerns, stating that the Supreme Court’s denial threatens to turn government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of open inquiry.
The controversy began when residents petitioned the county library commission to remove particular books which included titles like “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” by Isabel Wilkerson and “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings. Following the federal judge's mid-2023 order to restore the books, the Fifth Circuit court later reversed this decision, allowing for the continued removal of the listed titles.
Critics argue that this ruling undermines the fundamental right to free speech and could set a troubling precedent for censorship nationwide as local governments may feel empowered to remove literature based on ideological grounds.
