70% off

Judge Temporarily Blocks Arkansas Law Criminalizing Access to Certain Books

Act 372 aims to restrict access to content deemed ‘harmful to minors’ Nate Coulter is executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Act 372. Photo: Katie Adkins/Associated Press By Ginger Adams Otis Updated July 30, 2023 3:21 pm ET A federal judge has temporarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing portions of a law that would restrict what books can be made available to children. U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks issued a preliminary injunction on Saturday against two sections of Act 372, which was signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in late March. Act 372, which was set to take effect Aug. 1, would make it a criminal offense to distribute, provide or show content deemed “ha

A person who loves writing, loves novels, and loves life.Seeking objective truth, hoping for world peace, and wishing for a world without wars.
Judge Temporarily Blocks Arkansas Law Criminalizing Access to Certain Books
Act 372 aims to restrict access to content deemed ‘harmful to minors’

Nate Coulter is executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System, one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Act 372.

Photo: Katie Adkins/Associated Press

A federal judge has temporarily blocked Arkansas from enforcing portions of a law that would restrict what books can be made available to children.

U.S. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks issued a preliminary injunction on Saturday against two sections of Act 372, which was signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in late March.

Act 372, which was set to take effect Aug. 1, would make it a criminal offense to distribute, provide or show content deemed “harmful to minors” to anyone under 18 years old. Librarians and booksellers found to have violated the law could face criminal charges, with penalties including up to a year in jail. 

The law has been challenged by a coalition of plaintiffs that includes the Central Arkansas Library System in Little Rock, Ark. 

The group said in a lawsuit filed in early June that the sections are overly broad and vague, and violate the Constitution’s First and 14th Amendments. 

The law would create a new process to challenge library materials and could potentially force libraries and booksellers to create adult-only spaces to avoid criminal prosecution, the coalition said. Some places might opt to not carry titles that could be challenged, plaintiffs said. 

Judge Brooks in his decision said “balance of the equities and the public interest here decidedly favor the plaintiffs.” 

The defendants, which include 28 Arkansas prosecutors and a Crawford County judge, will suffer no harm if the preliminary injunction is granted pending a final disposition, he said.

Gov. Sanders’s office said it supports laws that “protect kids from having access to obscene content.” The Arkansas Attorney General’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. 

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, which represents some of the plaintiffs, commended Judge Brooks’s ruling while calling it a regrettable necessity.

“We are committed to maintaining the fight to safeguard everyone’s right to access information and ideas,” said Holly Dickson, executive director of ACLU of Arkansas. 

Attempts to ban some books from public libraries have increased in recent years, according to the American Library Association. There were 1,269 efforts to censor books and other resources in libraries in 2022, according to the group.

The efforts have reached communities across the U.S. Voters in one Michigan town defunded a library over a dispute related to LGBT content. A Texas county considered closing its public libraries after a federal judge ordered more than a dozen recently removed books to be returned to shelves.

Elected officials, parents and conservative groups including Moms for Liberty say they are advocating for book removals because the titles are inappropriate for children and students. The push has also followed directives and legislation from state leaders.

Those who oppose the bans say they are a disservice to students and threaten First Amendment rights.

Judge Brooks’s ruling “highlights the importance of the First Amendment in protecting books, booksellers, publishers, authors, librarians and libraries as essential to our democratic society,” said attorney Michael Bamberger, who represents some of the plaintiffs challenging Act 372.

Write to Ginger Adams Otis at [email protected]

What's Your Reaction?

like

dislike

love

funny

angry

sad

wow

Media Union

Contact us >