Timothy L. Brooks, a judge in Arkansas temporarily blocked a law that it would be a crime for librarians or booksellers to give minors “harmful” books.
A “harmful” book may contain nudity or sexual content. They lawmakers thought it was “inappropriate” for minors to be reading such books. But Brooks blocked the law because parts of it were unconstitutional, such as banning kids from reading whatever they wanted to.
It would be unconstitutional because it would force librarians or booksellers to remove books, in violation to “freedom of speech”. “The plaintiffs argued that the law would force librarians and booksellers to make an impossible choice: Remove books that some might deem offensive to young readers from their shelves, create secure, adult-only spaces for those books, ban minors from their facilities altogether — or expose themselves to criminal charges or fines.”, says the Washington Post. Some people want to read adult books too, so it’s not fair to ban them from certain places and expose them to fines and criminal charges.
Next, many people would rebel against this because they believed in freedom of speech, and they think it’s not fair. “I want to fight for our rights to intellectual freedom and ensure that libraries remain spaces where young Arkansans can explore diverse perspectives,” says Hayden Kirby, a 17-year-old resident of Little Rock who frequents the Central Arkansas Library System. Like Kirby, many other minors want to fight for their rights too, to create a space where both minors and adults can share in and read.
A lot of people are angry and upset about the law that banned them from reading whatever they wanted. What will the masses think about this— restricting freedom of speech and redefining what books are inappropriate to minors?
A “harmful” book may contain nudity or sexual content. They lawmakers thought it was “inappropriate” for minors to be reading such books. But Brooks blocked the law because parts of it were unconstitutional, such as banning kids from reading whatever they wanted to.
It would be unconstitutional because it would force librarians or booksellers to remove books, in violation to “freedom of speech”. “The plaintiffs argued that the law would force librarians and booksellers to make an impossible choice: Remove books that some might deem offensive to young readers from their shelves, create secure, adult-only spaces for those books, ban minors from their facilities altogether — or expose themselves to criminal charges or fines.”, says the Washington Post. Some people want to read adult books too, so it’s not fair to ban them from certain places and expose them to fines and criminal charges.
Next, many people would rebel against this because they believed in freedom of speech, and they think it’s not fair. “I want to fight for our rights to intellectual freedom and ensure that libraries remain spaces where young Arkansans can explore diverse perspectives,” says Hayden Kirby, a 17-year-old resident of Little Rock who frequents the Central Arkansas Library System. Like Kirby, many other minors want to fight for their rights too, to create a space where both minors and adults can share in and read.
A lot of people are angry and upset about the law that banned them from reading whatever they wanted. What will the masses think about this— restricting freedom of speech and redefining what books are inappropriate to minors?