"There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches." — Ray Bradbury, "Fahrenheit 451"
This week marks the 31st annual Banned Books Week, the American Library Association's celebration of the freedom to read. Banned Books Week also serves as an important reminder of our ongoing duty to ensure that our government maintains open access to all kinds of ideas and information. Although some may think that censorship is a relic from a bygone age, the urge to suppress seemingly dangerous or offensive thoughts will exist as long as human beings continue to think. Last year, there were to ban a particular book from a curriculum or library, and many more go unreported. But today, the specter of book burning extends far beyond the library shelves — as more and more information moves online, Internet filtering has become the 21st century's bonfire.
Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has opposed censorship in all its forms. From books and radio to film, television, and the Internet, we have consistently fought to make sure Americans have the right to say, think, read, and write whatever they want, without fear of government reprisal. In 1926, we defended H.L. Mencken when he was charged with distributing copies of his banned magazine, American Mercury. In 1952, we won Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (aka the "Miracle Decision"), in which the Supreme Court finally struck down film censorship laws. In 1978, we filed a Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief challenging the government's power to suppress radio broadcasts of George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television." And in 1997, we won Reno v. ACLU, which held that Internet speech is entitled to full First Amendment protection. And those are just a few of my personal favorites: more of the ACLU's most notable "Banned Book" cases are listed below – and some are from the not-so-distant past.
We are proud of this legacy, but we're not resting on our laurels. In the last five years, we joined in the Supreme Court challenge against the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletive" rule. We successfully challenged the government's ideological exclusion of Professors Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib from the country's borders. We launched a campaign to prevent public schools throughout the country from filtering LGBT web content. And we continue to challenge the government's use of its surveillance powers in ways that chill individual expression. (See here and here). We remain passionately committed to the First Amendment values that keep our society open. And we will continue to oppose censorship wherever it rears its ugly head.
2002
The Vietnam Reader, various authors
After a parent complained about passages from "The Vietnam Reader" that included violence and were sexually explicit, a committee in the North Kitsap School District in Washington deleted four readings without opening the discussion to members of the community. ACLU advocacy resulted in the creation of a policy to provide a fairer process for considering book challenges.
Sophie's Choice, William Styron
The Norwalk-La Mirada High School District in California removed "Sophie's Choice" from the La Mirada High School library shelves after a parent complained about sections of the acclaimed novel. When students expressed concerns that their First Amendment rights were being violated, the ACLU wrote a letter to the school district asking that the book be returned to the school library shelves. The book has since been returned.
2001
Lives of Notable Gay Men and Lesbians, various authors
On behalf of two students, the ACLU sued an Anaheim, Calif., school district for pulling the biographical series "Lives of Notable Gay Men and Lesbians" off a school library's shelves. The school agreed to put the books back and amended its policy regarding censorship of library books.
2000
Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling
A Zeeland, Mich., school district banned students in grades K-4 from taking the "Harry Potter" books out of the school library and required students in grades 5-8 to obtain parental permission before borrowing them. The policy also forbade teachers from reading the books out loud during classes. After the ACLU sent letters to the public schools, the district formed a committee to review the issue and rescinded the policy.
1986
As I Lay Dying, William Faulkner
Faulkner's classic was banned in a Mayfield, Ky., school district because it was deemed offensive and obscene. After intense pressure from the ACLU, the school district reversed its decision.
1973
Slaughterhouse Five, Kurt Vonnegut
The ACLU successfully sued a North Dakota school district on behalf of a teacher who taught "Slaughterhouse Five," which was called "a tool of the devil" by a local minister.
1957
Howl and Other Poems, Allen Ginsberg
Poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti contacted the ACLU to defend the publication of "Howl." U.S. Customs officials had seized the books, stating, "You wouldn't want your children to come across it." A state court judge ruled that the poem could not be suppressed as obscene by local authorities.
1950
Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn, Henry Miller
The director of the ACLU of Northern California attempted to import "Tropic of Cancer" and "Tropic of Capricorn." U.S. Customs officials seized the books and the director, Ernest Besig, went to court to defend the works against obscenity charges.
1939
The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
Along with several other groups, the ACLU protested the Kern County, Calif., Board of Supervisors' resolution banning "The Grapes of Wrath." The board argued that the book "offended our citizenry." Kern County is in the center of the agricultural region featured in the novel.
1933
Ulysses, James Joyce
In one of the organization's most famous cases, the ACLU defended Joyce's "Ulysses" after U.S. Customs officials seized copies of the novel, calling it obscenity "of the rottenest and vilest character." After a decade-long struggle, it was ruled that "Ulysses" was not obscene.
Learn more about censorship and other civil liberty issues: 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 -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.