Eighth Circuit: Schools Don’t Owe Kids Access to Sexually Explicit Books
“The First Amendment does not guarantee students the right to access books of their choosing at taxpayer expense,” an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled on Monday.
Authors of pornographic books do not have an inalienable right to sell their goods to school libraries, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday.
A coalition of LGBT groups, free-speech organizations, authors, and publishers is challenging an Iowa law requiring schools to ensure that books are “age-appropriate.”
Senate File 496 explicitly refers to books with “descriptions or visual depictions of a sex act” and says school libraries cannot hand them out to kids.
This upset Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, and HarperCollins, who all really want to place pornographic books in front of kids.
However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction against the law, holding that schools have a “legitimate pedagogical” interest in which books are accessible to kids during the day.
Judge Ralph Erickson wrote in the opinion:
It is indisputable that the purposes of a school library are to enhance education, supplement classroom learning, and facilitate the development of students’ knowledge and skills. A school library is curated by school officials, educators, librarians, or perhaps some combination of these people. It is supervised by educators and librarians.
Judges Lavenski Smith and Jonathan Kobes both joined in the opinion.
The court further ruled that children do not have a right to read certain books in schools, and this does not amount to a book ban.
“The First Amendment does not guarantee students the right to access books of their choosing at taxpayer expense,” the ruling stated, citing case precedents.
Iowa’s attorney general praised the decision.
“Parents should always know that school is a safe place for their children to learn, not be concerned they are being indoctrinated with inappropriate sexual materials and philosophies,” Attorney General Brenna Bird stated. “I am grateful that our law protecting children was upheld today.”
Penguin Random House criticized the ruling against it.
“The fight continues, and we stand with authors, educators, librarians and students to protect access to books and the freedom to read,” the publisher stated, according to Courthouse News.
The ruling is the latest part of a battle over whether public schools should be allowed to expose kids to explicit sexual material at any age or whether parents should be involved and be the decision-makers about when their children learn about such sensitive topics.
Other states, including most notably Florida, have sided with the rights of parents to raise their children and to teach them about sex under their own values system.
Last summer, the Supreme Court affirmed this view in Mahmoud v. Taylor, ruling that public schools should provide parents the ability to opt their children out of sex and gender classes that conflict with their religious views.
The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of the coalition of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian parents.
[Featured image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
What a bunch of maroons. Sex books for middle schoolers. Not just sex books but nonheterosexual sex books. I almost pity the democrat that tries to run on that.
Ahhh another thought:
Feminists: Pornography is violence against women. Ban it!
Progressives including feminists: Kids need access to books judged as pornography. Provide it.
Aghhhhhhhh! Make it make sense!!
The answer is simple. They are not living in the same reality as the rest of us. Recognition of their own hypocrisy is nonexistent. The past is irrelevant to them, so they never have to address anything they say.
I wonder if those wanting retention of the books are against the film industry’s rating system. Why shouldn’t grade schoolers see XXX movies? (sarc, by the way) Children are not small adults, but are highly susceptible which is the whole ball game. (Interesting note from the movie series “Rome”… Romans did see children as miniature adults).
Fifth grade had always has National Geographics without controversy long ago.
Sure Rhhardin. You want expand on that moral equivalence for us?
This is a red herring. The law doesn’t ban nudity. It bans depictions of sex acts. Which aren’t in National Geographic.
Don’t confuse idjit hardin (but I repeat myself) with the facts.
Children are much easier to pervert the younger you can get to them. Add progressive parents more concerned with preserving woke orthodoxy, and K-12 becomes a very productive pedophile hunting preserve.
The opinion in the case only reverses the injunction that had been issued by a lower court preventing the law from being enforced.
In other words, this is not a “total victory.” The case will still be heard in the lower court.
Secondly, the number of groups that are against the law is interesting. There are a number of publishers (including publishers of comic books.) The left always talks about corporations putting profits ahead of the general public, and yet here they are, banding together.
Finally, the opinion has this:
It is somewhat sad that schools always beg for parental input and assistance, and yet the court seems to be saying parents have no input in what can be handed out or assigned to their children.
Perhaps it is an oversight, but then again………
Yes. Banning together to put their profits (from selling porn to school libraries) ahead of basic decency.
The reversal of a preliminary injunction is often very telling as an outcome because it usually means either that the petitioner has not suffered irreparable harm or a is not likely to succeed on the merits or both. And the preliminary injunction is usually preceded by a reasonably full(er) evidentiary record for consideration on appeal. A reversal of a PI is often predictive of a final, dispositive ruling against the petitioner.
Ralph Erickson (Trump), Lavenski Smith (Bush) and Jonathan Kobes (Trump), proving once again how wise is our CJ Roberts who told us all that there’s no such thing as Obama judges or Trump judges and so forth.
If the publishers, authors, activists, et al think it’s so important for kids to have access to these books, they could always set up their own bookmobile outside a school and let kids check the books out for themselves. Oh, yeah, they just might be arrested for providing pornographic materials to minors and corruption of the morals of minors.
I don’t understand how providing these books in school might possibly be OK, but selling (or giving) them to minors over the counter is illegal.
What’s next? Attempts to serve alcohol to minors in school cafeterias?
If the parents of the children think it appropriate that their children be exposed to pornographic books and material then they can buy such books and material themselves and supply it to their children to read and peruse at home. There’s no need to involve the schools at all. And there’s absolutely no reason that the taxpayers must bankroll books with pornographic content. That is all.
eot
Alternatively the Parents could go to the local community Library and check those books out to provide them access.
All libraries have curated content, none have every book on hand in inventory. Libraries cater their collection to the cultural center mass of the community to remain relevant to their customer base. If they stray they lose that base, traffic drops and support erodes. The overwhelming majority of the public remains opposed to putting sexualized books onto library shelves in schools or in the ‘children’s section’ of a community library.
“at taxpayers expense”!!
yes someone says it
you want your kids to read and see x rated…then pay directly for that without anyone elses tax money you sick twisted foookers
To take an extreme view, is there any requirement that a school even have a library?
The Deviant Lobby is upset. Boo hoo.
How big does a library have to be to hold all these books the ‘publishers’ rights’ people want to include? Where are they going to put it all?
I typically ask leftists if the literary works of the Marquis DeSade should be on the shelves of the children’s’ library. That usually causes them to give the matter some thought rather than reflexively saying there should be NO restrictions.
Leave a Comment