Every year, hundreds to thousands of books are banned in the United States over concerns about whether or not the content included is appropriate for the general student population whether on religious, moral or societal grounds.
In April 2022, one community decided that they would not stand for the idea of suppressing their First Amendment rights or their freedom of information, and seven plaintiffs sued the town of Llano County, Texas for ordering the removal of 17 books from their public libraries. These 17 books ranged from topics on race, hierarchies (like ‘Caste’ by Isabel Wilkerson) and sexual identity to plain, shrewd humor. U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman ruled to have all of the books reinstated while the trial went on: “The First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on either viewpoint or content discrimination.”
City officials appealed his ruling and brought their case to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals where three judges passed the decision to keep eight of the 17 targeted books on the shelves. Later, the court decided to toss the decision and is currently trying the case again under the court of 17 judges as per the request of Llano County.
Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board has served as a precedent case that has supported the idea that books cannot be removed from a library based on a government official’s or a librarian’s opposition to the ideas presented within the books. The attorneys suing Llano County are using this 30-year-old precedent to argue that they are not allowed to remove books from public libraries on the basis that they do not agree with the ideas. However, Llano County is arguing that this precedent is based on First Amendment reasoning, and therefore has no basis in this case; the government “has no constitutional obligation to provide books,” taking the idea of taking away freedom of speech out of the question.
While the case is ongoing, Llano County also put a stop to the purchase of any new books, as it could potentially cause legal issues.
“If private speech could be passed off as government by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence the most powerful, unfavorable ideas,” commented Judge Leslie Southwick.
Judge Leslie Southwick, one of the judges in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, argued that the actions of Llano County’s council were on the edge of being a “suppression” of speech based on the ideas held by some.
On the other hand, Judge Kyle Duncan offered a compelling, alternative perspective by questioning whether it would be a violation of the First Amendment if the book being targeted for banning was one of racist nature. Alternatively, what if it was made by someone with malintent?
One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Katherine Chiarello, argued that the legality of removing books is based on motivation. She suggested that if the book already had been selected to be placed in a library, then removal based on disagreement of ideas is a violation of law: “[If] the substantial motivation for the removal is disagreement with the ideas, then yes, Your Honor, that’s unconstitutional.” She explained, “It doesn’t matter that you and I are offended by that book — it can’t be removed because of that disagreement.”
Matthew Borden, also representing the plaintiffs, remained strong on their argument, saying, “if the librarian removes ‘The Cat in the Hat’ because he or she is substantially motivated by suppressing the viewpoint in it, then yes, [it violates the First Amendment.]”
One of the targeted books was a non-fiction work about an underlying caste system in America, where author Isabel Wilkerson drew similarities to the hierarchal systems that have existed throughout history. The book, titled “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” details eight pillars through which hierarchies develop, including bloodlines and certain stigmas. The book contained strong political and cultural statements, ideologies and viewpoints, and reader feedback on Goodreads ranged from calling it ‘astonishing,’ ‘provocative,’ and ‘remarkable’ to ‘ignorant’ and ‘biased.’
Many argue that some of the targeted books have ‘inappropriate’ content (whether referring to the actual content or use of profanity.) ‘Lawn Boy’ by Jonathan Evison, is a coming-of-age story that was labeled as ‘obscene’ in the Llano County case’s court trials due to inappropriate content. Even reviewers on Goodreads were highly polarized on the content: While some labeled the book as a ‘raw’ and ‘realistic’ depiction of a young, working-class man who grew up in a chaotic environment, others saw certain depictions in the book as ‘disgusting.’
When Judge Duncan questioned why this book should be kept on the shelf as it is targeted for pornography, Chiarello explained that as long as the content is passed through a ‘legal test’ for obscenity, she would have no issue removing it. However, according to her, no such test was conducted.
According to the Department of Justice’s website, the Miller test is conducted to determine whether a material is obscene or not.
“Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offenses. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text.”
The three criteria that must be met for a book to be labeled ‘obscene’ as per the Miller Test follow:
- Appeals to “prurient interest” – defined as overly sexual content
- “Depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law”
- Does not have “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Book Banning Over the Years
The American Library Association (ALA) reported a 65 percent increase in the number of books asked to be banned between the years of 2022 and 2023, a rise from 2571 in 2022 to 4240 separate books in 2023. Out of the top 10 banned books of 2023, 70 percent were challenged for having LGBT+ content, 100 percent were marked for having some form of “sexually explicit content,” 40 percent for content of rape, and 20 percent for profanity, drugs, etc. One of the well-known titles included “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” a common part of many high school curriculums.
The ALA is a nonprofit organization aimed to promote the vitalness of libraries, to advocate for intellectual freedom, and to “promote lifelong learning.” They organize to influence legislation in topics of net neutrality, library patron privacy, public access to government information, student libraries, library funding and right to information as it is affected by copyright laws.
Protesting Book Bans
One of the best ways to fight censorship is by contacting your government officials. PEN America is a nonprofit organization to promote media literacy, fight censorship, support journalists, and provide resources to help us make our voices heard. They also list five ways that we can contribute to the efforts:
- “Defend the freedom to read”
- “Support organizations that defend readers and writers”
- “Vote locally”
- “Check out a banned book”
- “Speak out”
While many of these ideas are straightforward, others may require some additional digging. We always focus on presidential candidates and their debates, but it is almost impossible to find any relevant news in our daily algorithms about local candidates. Local candidates often have more power over our daily lives, and this includes book bans. By finding out the stance that your local politicians have, you can make your voice heard through a vote. Emailing or sending a letter to your local officials can also make a difference.
Another idea listed is to simply utilize the resource targeted for banning. This idea was mentioned in a political forum held by Her Campus at ODU, where concerns regarding the environment, censorship and the importance of voting were addressed for the upcoming election. During the forum, two participants suggested that simply using the resources that a local library offers can prove that it is worth funding to policymakers.
Patty Stevens is an ODU student and was one of two participants at the forum, who had personally seen book banning in action in their hometown, Hanover County, Virginia.
In a personal interview on Sept. 29, 2024, Stevens mentioned that while the school board pushed heavily to ban books, the community members, students and even educators were against the ban. In fact, a Girl Scout project Stevens’ peer’s little sister completed revolved around book bans: she created “little libraries” and set them up all around town with donations consisting of the banned books in order to provide everyone access to them.
Everyone has the power to support open access to knowledge. Whether it is simply by checking out a book from the library, or creating an initiative to set up libraries, there is always a way to make your voice heard.