A federal judge in Florida struck down key provisions of a state law that allowed school districts to ban books for “sexual conduct,” calling the statute unconstitutionally vague and a violation of the First Amendment. The decision, issued August 13 in Orlando, sided with a coalition of publishers, authors, and parents who challenged the law after dozens of acclaimed works were pulled from school libraries.
The law, known as HB 1069, required schools to remove any book within five days if a parent objected because it was “pornographic” or “describes sexual conduct.” Judge Carlos E Mendoza ruled that those terms were undefined, leaving school boards and parents with unchecked power to censor protected speech. “By leaving these items undefined, Florida has given parents license to object to materials under an ‘I know it when I see it’ approach,” he wrote, citing a Supreme Court warning, set down in Miller v California (1973), against that standard.
Books removed under the statute included The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison, Looking for Alaska by John Green, The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas, and Nineteen Minutes by Jodi Picoult. Plaintiffs argued that their works were taken off shelves not because of any obscenity but because a few passages mentioned sex. The judge agreed, noting that Florida law already bars obscene material harmful to minors and that the new law extended far beyond that limit.
In his order, Mendoza drew a sharp distinction between obscenity and the contested terms. “Neither a prohibition on content that ‘describes sexual conduct’ nor that which is allegedly ‘pornographic’ takes the third Miller prong into account,” he wrote, referring to the Supreme Court’s obscenity test. “Both prohibitions lack the specificity required in identifying obscene material.”
- Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards,” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
- Whether the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, as defined by state law.
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
The court did allow one narrowing construction. It held that “pornographic,” when read in context with Florida Statute § 847.012, must be interpreted as synonymous with “harmful to minors.” But the broader phrase “describes sexual conduct” could not be saved. “The Court must conclude that there is no constitutional application of a prohibition against books containing material that ‘describes sexual conduct,’” Mendoza wrote.
The ruling emphasized the constitutional right of students to receive information. Parents in the case testified that their children tried to check out specific titles and were told the books had been removed. “This right comes from both the sender’s right to provide it and the receiver’s own rights under the First Amendment,” the judge observed, quoting earlier precedent.
The decision is expected to have immediate consequences for Florida schools, requiring the reshelving of works banned only for describing sexual conduct. It also sends a message to other states considering similar measures. As the order put it plainly: “These provisions turn the Act into an ‘I know it when I see it’ law. But the Constitution requires more clarity.”
