Florida Right to Read Decision is a Positive Far Beyond the State

EveryLibrary celebrates the decision last week by U.S. District Court Judge Carlos E. Mendoza in the case of Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson, which reaffirms the First Amendment and the fundamental right to read. Judge Mendoza struck down significant portions of Florida House Bill 1069, finding that its vague and overly broad prohibitions on books that “describe sexual conduct” violated the Constitution. In his opinion, he noted that the law allowed parents to object under an “I know it when I see it” standard, forcing educators and librarians to guess what might be deemed “unsuitable,” thereby chilling access to entire collections.

The court clarified that obscene materials are already prohibited under longstanding Florida and federal law. By including classics such as “The Handmaid’s Tale”, “Brave New World”, and “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,” along with works by authors like Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas, HB1069 targeted non-obscene works that have literary, political, and scientific value. Judge Mendoza concluded that it is unclear what the statute actually prohibits, as it treated all students the same regardless of age or grade level and imposed severe penalties on educators for non-compliance.

Sign the petition against banned books today!

Importantly, Judge Mendoza rejected the state’s argument that wholesale removals of school library books amounted to “government speech.” He found that “slapping the label of government speech on book removals only serves to stifle disfavored viewpoints,” affirming that the First Amendment does not permit governments to erase entire perspectives from school libraries. 

This ruling in PRH v. Gibson stands in direct contrast to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Little v. Llano, which dangerously expanded the Government speech doctrine to shield viewpoint-based removals in public libraries. EveryLibrary has strongly opposed the Llano ruling because it undermines readers' rights and library staff's professional independence. By rejecting the same rationale here, Judge Mendoza restores the constitutional balance, affirming that school libraries are not tools of the state.

Email your reps and ask them to put a stop to book bans in the United States.

We urge Florida school districts to comply with the ruling without delay, to restore the hundreds of books that have been improperly removed, and to respect the professional judgment of educators and librarians. HB 1069 is no longer operative in school libraries and the state and certain school districts should not behave as if it is good law. As Stephana Ferrell from the Florida Freedom to Read Project has noted, this ruling is both a victory for constitutional literacy and an opportunity for schools to model real civics education. Instead of appealing to undermine students’ rights, districts should use this moment to teach the First Amendment in action, that the freedom to read is a cornerstone of democracy, and that librarians, not politics, are entrusted to guide access to information.

Donate today and help us continue to fight against book bans and censorship in the United States

John Chrastka, Executive Director of EveryLibrary, adds: “This is an important and hopeful day for the right to read. We commend Penguin Random House, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster, the Authors Guild, the other publishing houses, the authors, and the parent plaintiffs for their courage in standing up to censorship in the courts. Their victory affirms that students deserve access to a wide range of ideas and stories, sending a clear message that the First Amendment protects readers everywhere. This ruling will be a guide for future cases across the country.”

EveryLibrary remains committed to defending the freedom to read in every community, school, and library. While the state has announced plans to appeal (the Florida Attorney General has argued for the government speech doctrine, including before the 5th Circuit), this ruling marks a decisive victory for basic First Amendment doctrine. It reinforces a growing body of law across the nation that supports the freedom to read and requires courts to reject vague, overly broad, and discriminatory bans.