September 24-October 1 is Banned Books Week, and ACLU staff and volunteers are posting their thoughts about the freedom to read throughout the week. Celebrate your First Amendment rights by attending one of the ACLU's Banned Books events or just by reading whatever you choose.
The hottest genre in the publishing world, known as YA for "young adult," is most frequently targeted by those who would tell you and your children what you should NOT read.
During the 2010-2011 school year, the number of books banned in Texas public schools numbered 17, down from 20 the year before. Although that is some progress, we've also found that very few school districts have a procedure to dispute a challenge or petition for reinstatement of a banned book. Once a book is banned, it is usually banned forever.
To support and inspire anti-censorship activism, the ACLU of Texas recently launched a website, . Check out the , and go ahead and read one!
ACLU of Texas supporters have also organized events and banned books read-ins in San Antonio and Corpus Christi during Banned Books Week.
Many of the books challenged and banned in Texas this year are in the popular YA category, although at Cibolo Green Elementary School in San Antonio, Merriam-Webster's Visual Dictionary drew a parent's objection due to "sexual content or nudity." As a result of the challenge, the dictionary was placed in a restricted area of the library.
As hard as it is to get kids to "look it up," why make it harder by restricting access to the dictionary?
This example is typical of the extremes we've found every year during the 15-year history of the ACLU of Texas annual banned books report, "." For this report, we analyzed information provided by 750 Texas public school districts.
The beleaguered YA category, considered by many educators to have inspired new generations of readers, includes the Harry Potter and Captain Underpants series, Phyllis Reynolds Naylor's "Alice" stories, Judy Blume's work, and more novels full of more vampires, dark angels, and zombies than you can shake a stick (or a clove of garlic) at.
Censorship of YA books is concerning because these books motivate youth to read, improve literacy levels, and drive interest in literature. They are also very relevant to youth, assisting them to make sense of the world and form their own ideas and values as they mature.
At this year's ) in Austin, I will join the first-ever "American Publishers' Banned Books" panel to discuss more about what is going on with the banning of YA and other genres, as well as how to safeguard freedom of access to the latest, most talked-about books and literary classics.
We urge parents to think long and hard before banning any age-appropriate book. Instead, concerned parents could, for example, use the content as a teaching opportunity to discuss societal values or affirm a family's religious teachings and moral beliefs.
Efforts by a single parent or a small group to ban a book and deny all students access to it infringes on the rights of other parents and students to make their own choices. Book banning is anathema to a free society.
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.