Federal Judge Overturns Arkansas Law Limiting Access to Library Books Considered Harmful to Minors
A law in Arkansas that restricted minors’ access to books classified as harmful has been deemed overly broad and unconstitutional by a federal judge.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks from the Western District of Arkansas has issued a permanent injunction against key aspects of an Arkansas law that made it illegal to provide minors with books deemed harmful and set up a process for citizens to challenge the appropriateness of certain books in public libraries.
The law, signed by Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in March 2023, faced lawsuits from a coalition of organizations asserting that it would inhibit free speech and restrict access to a wide range of materials.
Supporters of the law, including Sanders and Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, have argued that it is a crucial step in shielding children from inappropriate and harmful content.
Section 1 of the law aimed to impose misdemeanor penalties on librarians, booksellers, and others for making materials classified as “harmful to minors” available to individuals under 18. Violations would be classified as a Class A misdemeanor with penalties of up to one year in jail or a fine of $2,500.
Meanwhile, Section 5 created a citizen-initiated challenge mechanism allowing individuals to contest the appropriateness of library books, placing the final judgment in the hands of local elected officials instead of librarians.
Related Stories
Judge Brooks found both sections unconstitutional, labeling them as “vaguely worded and open to multiple interpretations.” He observed that Section 1 did not differentiate between ages and maturity levels among minors, potentially banning books that possess literary, scientific, or artistic significance.
“To avoid criminal repercussions under Section 1, librarians and booksellers may be compelled to restrict older minors’ and adults’ access to a significant amount of reading material,” he stated. “The creation of separate ‘18 or older’ areas in libraries and bookstores will stigmatize the materials within, likely deterring adult access to this content.”
Additionally, he criticized Section 5 for lacking precise definitions and procedural safeguards, stating that it allowed for challenges to the appropriateness of library materials yet left the ultimate decision to local governing bodies, which raises concerns of arbitrary censorship.
Brooks remarked, “Anyone from Arkansas or outside interest groups who feels impacted by a book can initiate a Section 5 challenge, leading to libraries experiencing a surge in challenges.” He noted that this section provided local officials with broad discretion on what content is “appropriate” without established procedural guidelines. “They don’t even need to read the books themselves,” he concluded.
The Arkansas Attorney General announced plans to appeal the ruling. “I respect the court’s decision and will pursue an appeal,” Griffin shared in a statement to The Epoch Times.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas, which represented several plaintiffs in the case, commended the judge’s ruling.
This case highlights the ongoing national discussion regarding controversial content available to children.
Opponents, including the plaintiffs in the Arkansas lawsuit against Act 372, counter that these laws can lead to excessive overreach, as the subjective nature of terms like “harmful” or “appropriate” might result in the censorship of important and valuable works.
