A federal court has upheld a lower court's decision to block parts of a state law regulating libraries.
Act 372 passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 2023, would have criminalized librarians for offering materials that are “harmful to minors.” Obscenity is already prohibited in American public libraries.
Courts have traditionally only applied “obscenity” to a handful of media. The term “harmful to minors” used in the law represents a broader range of material. The law came amid a statewide push to remove and relocate books in state libraries discussing social issues or LGBTQ+ themes.
The law was supposed to go into effect Aug. 1, 2023. It would have required these books be put in a restricted section of the library inaccessible to minors without their parents. Librarians not complying with the law could be subject to criminal penalties.
A suit was filed by librarians, bookstore owners, patrons, and special interest groups across the state. A 17-year-old student from Little Rock Central High School was also a plaintiff in the case. The suit argued the law was vague and unconstitutional.
Last year, Federal Judge Timothy Brooks in Northwest Arkansas struck down the more controversial parts of the law saying it amounted to book banning. He left in less controversial provisions such as a part of the law allowing parents to see what their child checks out.
On Monday, a federal court upheld Brooks’ decision. Their ruling said the law did not define basic terms, was too broad, and violated the due process rights of librarians.
Monday's ruling quoted from Texas v. Johnson, a case about the legality of burning American flags.
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,” the ruling said, “it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
The ruling said the sections of the law they enjoined “would permit, if not encourage, library committees and local governmental bodies to make censorship decisions based on content or viewpoint, which would violate the First Amendment.”
