{"id":1118415,"date":"2023-10-09T00:26:22","date_gmt":"2023-10-09T04:26:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/uncategorized\/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books-kansas-reflector\/"},"modified":"2023-10-09T00:26:22","modified_gmt":"2023-10-09T04:26:22","slug":"where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books-kansas-reflector","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books-kansas-reflector\/","title":{"rendered":"Where the Supreme Court stands on banning books &#8211; Kansas Reflector"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    Efforts to ban books in public schools and public libraries    reached anall-time    high in 2022and show few signs of abating for 2023,    according to the American Library Association.  <\/p>\n<p>    The recent movement to remove books appears to be    acoordinated    campaigntaking place at both the state and local    levels; it often targets books that address race, gender or    both. Some of these efforts have resulted inlaws    that threaten to jail librarians.  <\/p>\n<p>        Most Americans opposeremoving books from libraries.    That may explain why Illinois recently enacted a law that    outlaws banning books: If any public library in the state bans    materials because of partisan    or doctrinal disapproval, it will be ineligible for state    funds.  <\/p>\n<p>    Bans  and the banning of bans  have already ended up in the    courts. For example, in a lawsuit    in Florida, a First Amendment advocacy group, a publisher,    parents and authors whose books have been targeted filed suit    against the Escambia County School Districts removal of 10    books and restriction of 100 others in the school library. They    alleged that school officials violated students First    Amendment rights when they removed books that discussed, race,    racism and LGBTQ+ people. The case is ongoing.  <\/p>\n<p>    One or more of these sorts of cases could end up at the Supreme    Court  but until then, the lower courts will look to existing    precedent, set in a legal ruling that dates back to 1982. In    that ruling, the court declared that school personnel have a    lot of discretion related to the content of their libraries,    but this discretion may not be    exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>    My analysis of that 1982 case,Board of Education,    Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, finds    useful information that can help put thesebook    ban lawsuits in context.  <\/p>\n<p>    One student, on behalf of four other students in the school    district, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The suit    claimed that removing the books from the library infringed upon    the students First Amendment rights to freely access ideas and    information.  <\/p>\n<p>    The school board prevailed in U.S. District Court because the    judge found that school boards should have discretion in those    matters. But the appeals court overturned that ruling, saying    the fact that the school boards reasoning relied in part on    external evaluations of the books raised concerns about    censorship.  <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      When the case came before the Supreme Court in 1982, the      justices agreed to analyze whether the school boards      decision to bar certain books from its libraries, based on      the books content, violated the students rights.    <\/p>\n<p>      The ruling was divided  five justices affirmed the appeals      courts decision in favor of the students, though not all of      them agreed on exactly why.    <\/p>\n<p>      Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that the First Amendment      does limit school officials authority to remove books from      school libraries, because that authority infringes      onstudents      rights to receive ideas and information. Justices      Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens signed on to this      opinion, which was not a majority opinion. Two justices wrote      concurring decisions, but only one agreed with the trios      overall conclusion that the board had unconstitutionally      infringed on students rights. Justice Harry Blackmun said      the government  the school board  could not deny students      access to ideas based on political reasons. Justice Byron      White agreed with the conclusion, but did not express a view      on the First Amendment question.    <\/p>\n<p>      Four justices dissented. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote      the main dissent, which was joined by Justices Lewis Powell,      William Rehnquist and Sandra Day OConnor. Their opinion      focused more on the issue of accessing books than it did on      the First Amendment questions the case raised.    <\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      Though there was not a clear majority opinion, the case      suggests that school boards have broad discretion over      library books but do not have unlimited authority to remove      books from library shelves.    <\/p>\n<p>      The justices agreed that a school library is a place where      important information is disseminated to learners  and is a      unique place for students to engage in inquiry related to      their interests and passions. Therefore, they ruled, school      officials may remove books only for sound educational reasons      or legitimate purposes  such as pervasive vulgarity or lack      of educational suitability.    <\/p>\n<p>      As a result, school personnel are likely limited in their      power to restrict books availability simply because they or      other officials disagree with the books content.    <\/p>\n<p>      If any of the current cases reach the Supreme Court, the      current justices could rule differently, of course. But in      the meantime, lower courts hearing book-banning cases will be      guided by that precedent.    <\/p>\n<p>      This article is republished from The Conversationunder a Creative Commons      license.Read      the original article.    <\/p>\n<p>      Suzanne Eckes is the      Susan S. Engeleiter professor of education law, policy and      practice at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. High school      student Ian Shaw contributed to the research and writing of      this article. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector      works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by      public policies or excluded from public debate. Find      information, including how to submit your own commentary,      here.    <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>Link:<br \/>\n<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/kansasreflector.com\/2023\/10\/07\/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books\/\" title=\"Where the Supreme Court stands on banning books - Kansas Reflector\" rel=\"noopener\">Where the Supreme Court stands on banning books - Kansas Reflector<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> Efforts to ban books in public schools and public libraries reached anall-time high in 2022and show few signs of abating for 2023, according to the American Library Association. The recent movement to remove books appears to be acoordinated campaigntaking place at both the state and local levels; it often targets books that address race, gender or both. Some of these efforts have resulted inlaws that threaten to jail librarians.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/first-amendment-2\/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-banning-books-kansas-reflector\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[94877],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1118415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-first-amendment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118415"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1118415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1118415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1118415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1118415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1118415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}