ACLU and ACLU of South Carolina Sound Alarm on Sweeping New Book Ban Law
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina that would enable mass censorship of books in school classrooms and libraries is set for automatic approval tomorrow, June 25th.
Titled “Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials,” this regulation was crafted by Ellen Weaver’s South Carolina Department of Education and sets a statewide policy banning books that contain descriptions of “sexual conduct” and “excretory functions.” This broad definition could be used to remove a vast range of literature from South Carolina schools, including classics like The Canterbury Tales, 20th-century masterpieces like 1984, and even children’s books like Everyone Poops.
“Superintendent Weaver is seeking to hand unprecedented power to pro-censorship groups, overriding students’ freedom to read as well as parents’ right to direct their own children’s education,” said Josh Malkin, advocacy director at ACLU of South Carolina. “At a time when we can’t afford to lose more educators, the superintendent’s book banning policy would place mountains of paperwork and a threat of punishment on the backs of public school teachers and librarians. We're calling on the superintendent to walk back this dangerous and draconian regulation."
This broad-reaching policy is set to take effect automatically, despite the fact that it was not debated or voted upon by either the state Senate or House as process typically dictates. School districts can decide if this policy applies retroactively, however it is automatic going forward. Librarians have been left without guidance as to how to go forward with future purchases, and there’s worry that the districts that decide to defend books will be flooded with challenges. A in Iowa, for example, has already led to the removal of books including Native Son, Ulysses, and The Color Purple from schools.
Over the past year, pro-censorship organizations have tried banning books in bulk via local school boards in , but they have largely been thwarted when districts listened to parents, teachers, and librarians who actually read the books. As the ACLU of South Carolina has repeatedly explained, the regulation would undermine parental rights and harm public education by throwing open the floodgates for mass book bans by encouraging self-appointed censors to impose their beliefs on all South Carolinians via appeals to the State Board of Education.
South Carolina’s regulation is part of a troubling nationwide book ban trend. The recently documented that in 2023, 4,240 unique book titles were targeted for censorship, and there were over 1,247 demands to censor library books, materials, and resources.
The ACLU and ACLU of South Carolina will continue to fight for a public education system where all students can see themselves, their experiences, and their histories reflected on library shelves — as well as where they can learn to think for themselves.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.