Earlier this week, that a school district in Missouri agreed to lift its ban on Slaughterhouse-Five and Twenty Boy Summer, two books the district had completely banned from its libraries. Thanks to a coalition of censorship opponents, the books are again available in Republic R-III School District libraries, but must be checked out from a "secure area" of the library by a parent or guardian.
The books were first banned in July, after Republic resident — who, incidentally, does not have children attending school in the district — sent a multipage letter to the school board outlining his religious objections to three books: Laurie Halse Anderson's Speak, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five and Sarah Ockler's Twenty Boy Summer. The Springfield News-Leader also published an op-ed by Scroggins last September: The district responded to his complaints by banning the works by Vonnegut and Ockler.
A coalition including the , the National Coalition Against Censorship and the PEN American Center to Republic School Distrcit superintendent Vern Minor objecting to this censorship in August. In addition, the ACLU of Kansas/Western Missouri filed a public records act request seeking more information about the policy that dictated the books' banning earlier this month. Community members also voiced their objections to the book bans at school board meetings.
The school board voted to reverse the ban at a school board meeting Monday. The ACLU of Kansas/Western Missouri will continue to review the district’s policies on rating, restricting, and removing books in the school district’s libraries to determine whether those policies and actions comply with the First Amendment.
This is progress, but it's also a stark reminder of the ongoing threats to artistic censorship and the First Amendment right to freedom of expression.
Saturday marks the start of , an annual event that celebrates the First Amendment and the freedom to read. New this year is Banned Sites Day on Wednesday, September 28. Banned Sites Day will raise awareness of the growing threat of internet filters to students' free speech rights. (The ACLU has been very active fighting censorship via internet filters with its "Don't Filter Me!" campaign.) As the American Library Association points out on its Banned Sites Awareness Day page:
Filtering websites does the next generation of digital citizens a disservice. Students must develop skills to evaluate information from all types of sources in multiple formats, including the Internet. Relying solely on filters does not teach young citizens how to be savvy searchers or how to evaluate the accuracy of information.
Of course, we at the ACLU heart Banned Books Week. ACLU affiliates across the country, from Connecticut to Texas, are celebrating the freedom to read with an array of events, from readings, to panel discussions, to parties. Check out a comprehensive list of ACLU events in your state here.
We hope you'll join us next week: Read a banned book or browse a banned site (), and let's celebrate the First Amendment!
Learn more about censorship: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.