LITTLE ROCK—A federal judge has blocked an Arkansas law that would have allowed criminal charges to be placed against librarians and private booksellers for offering minors access to books that are considered “harmful.” In a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the law, federal district judge Timothy L. Brooks said that the law cannot enter force on August 1, reports the Associated Press. This comes after a coalition of local and national plaintiffs, including the local Central Arkansas Library System, sued to challenge the law.
“The state is wrong on all fronts,” Brooks wrote in an opinion criticizing Arkansas for its defense of the law which targets what Arkansas considers to be obscene material. “[The] defendants are unable to cite any legal precedent to suggest that the state may censor non-obscene materials in a public library because such censorship is a form of government speech.” Senate Bill 81, the law in question, amends the state’s provisions for regulating obscene materials and minors’ access to what it deems obscene materials.
Senate Bill (SB) 81 added the action of loaning library materials to the statutes governing the possession and distribution of obscene content, reports the Arkansas Advocate, a state legislature-focused outlet of the States Newsroom nonprofit journalism network. The Advocate pointed out that the legal definition of obscenity requires that, “to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” SB 81 removed the libraries in schools and other public libraries from exemptions from prosecution “for disseminating a writing, film, slide, drawing, or other visual reproduction that is claimed to be obscene” by the state.
Groups that brought the lawsuit challenging SB 81 include the Freedom to Read Foundation, local public library systems, trade groups representing booksellers and publishers, local bookstore owners, and more. Defendants named in the lawsuit include 28 prosecutors who are represented by the attorney general, Republican Tim Griffin. They asked the court to dismiss the case, but Brooks declined the request.
Holly Dickson, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas, noted in a press release that the organization is pleased with the district court’s decision to block SB 81.
“It's regrettable that we even have to question whether our constitutional rights are still respected today,” Dickson said. “The question we had to ask was—do Arkansans still legally have access to reading materials? Luckily, the judicial system has once again defended our highly valued liberties.”
This decision also comes as age verification measures covering adult entertainment websites and social media networks enter force in the state. AVN reported on both laws, Senate Bill 66 and Senate Bill 396, and how they both impact the ongoing debate on freedom of speech online and the right to information deemed by the Republican supermajority in Arkansas as “pornographic” or “obscene.” Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, a far-right Republican who was the press secretary for then-President Donald Trump, adopted these laws in efforts to “protect” minors from age-restricted material at all points of contact—online or in person at a library or bookstore.
The library law, which became officially known as Act 372 after being passed, likewise aims to protect minors from potentially pornographic material being loaned at school and public libraries. In an analysis, Publishers Weekly points out that Act 372 is “a fig leaf to justify going after constitutionally-protected diverse materials, such as books involving the [LGBTQ] community.”
Many of the so-called “harmful” books in question, including Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe and All Boys Aren't Blue by George M. Johnson, are considered pornographic by Republican lawmakers and Gov. Sanders because they deal with cases of LGBTQ existence, sexuality and personal acceptance—especially during adolescence and puberty. However, they in actuality conist of nothing more than personal stories of growing up queer or in communities that demonize sexual expression as a mortal sin—a far cry from the "prurient interest" legal benchmark required to warrant censorial measures such the one at hand.
