FL public school parents who believe in preserving access to information in public education and libraries. https://www.fftrp.org/florida_censorship_attempts
![Screenshot from the top of the form.
DESCRIPTION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS DUTIES
Pursuant to section §1006.28, Florida Statutes, each School District must adopt a procedure to address any objections raised by a parent or resident of the county regarding a specific material being utilized by the School District. Typically, a book, but any material could be the subject to an objection if it is located in a classroom, or made available in a school or classroom library.
The undersigned acknowledge that they are acting as members of a material review committee. Undersigned agrees to examine the objected to material to determine if it is prohibited by Florida Statute. The material in question is prohibited material if the undersigned finds any of the following are applicable:
• The material is Pornographic; or
• The material depicts or describes "sexual conduct." See below in § 847.001(19) F.S., and § 847.012 (3)(a-b). [Unless the objected to material is for a required a course covering health education; prevention of child sexual abuse, exploitation, and human trafficking; and sexual abstinence and the consequences of teenage pregnancy]; or
• The material is not suited to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material presented. See below in 5847.012 (7). or
• The material is inappropriate for the grade level and age group for which the material is used. See below in §847.012 (7).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:saluomt4fgyr3rfznfqhtclg/bafkreibzwycn6blxeaetnyadotyod5l7gvcr3lao3fsjl5r44ucr5632cy)
![However, “the concept of obscenity or of unprotected matter may vary
according to the group to whom the questionable material is directed or from whom it is quarantined." Id. at 1230 (quoting Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 636
(1968)). Thus, when applying the obscenity analysis to minors, courts employ "[the
Miller-for-minors test," which "takes the Miller prongs but adjusts the second and
third standards (and sometimes the first) 'for minors.' So the 'patently offensive"
requirement becomes 'patently offensive for minors,' and the "serious value'
exception becomes 'serious value for minors."" Id. (internal citations omitted).
As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, the 'societal value' requirement
in the third Miller prong is 'particularly important because it 'allows appellate
courts to impose some limitations and regularity on the definition [of "harmful to
minors"] by setting, as a matter of law, a [uniform] floor for socially redeeming
value."" Simmons v. State, 944 So. 2d 317, 329 (Fla. 2006) (alteration in original).
"But the Miller-for-minors test
does not do away with Miller's procedural
requirement that obscene content must be specifically identified to remove it from First-Amendment protection." HM Fla-ORL, LLC, 137 F.4th at 1230. "And content that is obscene as to minors may differ from its adult equivalent only in quality, not
in kind” Id.
With this context in mind, the Court turns to the substance of the statute. To
differentiate permissible applications from impermissible ones requires a degree of
statutory interpretation...Here, the law covers all library materials that "describe
sexual conduct" and that are "pornographic or prohibited under [section] 847.012."
As applied here, section 847.012 prohibits
content that is "harmful to minors." “Sexual conduct" and “harmful to minors" are defined with specificity. However, "describes" and "pornographic" are not.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:saluomt4fgyr3rfznfqhtclg/bafkreia466ckv74rxmcn6sxcfpg6jau5mg2qui2e7exftb3iubybhg6p4u)
![Defendants renew their argument that the government does not violate the
First Amendment in withdrawing a benefit facilitating the exercise of constitutional right. Indeed, the government "is not required to assist others in funding the expression of particular ideas[J" Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass'n, 555 U.S. 353, 358 (2009). But "the Government may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit." Agency for Int'l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc 'y Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214, (2013) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, it does not matter that school libraries are not compulsory. It also does not matter that a student may obtain the books elsewhere. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 880 (1997) (*[O]ne is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." (quoting Schneider v. State
of N.J. (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S. 147, 163 (1939))).
"Unlike the present case, [most] decisions on which [Defendants] rel[y] all involved cash subsidies or their equivalent." Matal, 582 U.S. at 240. Wisely, Defendants mostly rely on Ysursa, which involved a non-cash subsidy. When Idaho passed a law preventing "payroll deductions for political purposes," unions sued because employers could previously deduct union dues and fees for union political
activities. 555 U.S. at 356. Critical to the Court's holding there was that the unions
were not prevented from making political speech, the law merely prevented them
from "enlisting the State in support of that endeavor." 555 U.S. at 359. Here, speech
itself is being abridged. Even if Ysursa was on point, this law goes further because
it discriminates based on content.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:saluomt4fgyr3rfznfqhtclg/bafkreiepxz7pxbckg22kc6emqpzigg34yy3twalsk4onxk46iqwcpnndoi)
![The second challenged provision prohibits material that is "pornographic."
Without further definition, this provision treats all minors as if they are the same,
rendering content that is obscene as to younger children also obscene as to older
children. The law demands the opposite. The Eleventh Circuit has held that "[a]s applied to a Ginsberg-type adaptation of the adult obscenity test... if any reasonable minor, including a seventeen-year-old, would find serious value, the material is not "harmful to minors.'" Am. Booksellers v. Webb, 919 F.2d 1493, 1504- 05(11th Cir. 1990). Thus, the Eleventh Circuit's "interpretation of typical harmful to minors' statutes protects older children's rights. But it means that younger children may encounter material suitable for kids a few years older." HM Fla.-ORL. LLC, 137 F.4th at 1240; see also Fla. Stat. §§ 847.001(7); 847.012. "In Webb, [the Eleventh Circuit] noted that only a minimal number of works will have serious value for reasonable adults but not for reasonable older minors." HM Fla.-ORL, LLC, 137 F.4th at 1244 (quoting Webb, 919 F.2d at 1506). "The burdens on speech purveyors and consumers alike [there] were minimal." Id. The statute here imposes a much greater burden on all.
The statute's provision requiring districts to only "discontinue use of the material for any grade level or age group for which such use is inappropriate or unsuitable" does little to rescue it. Fla. Stat. § 1006.28(2)(a)2.b. In fact, that language compounds the issues with the law. See HM Fla.-ORL, LLC, 137 F.4th at 1245 ("The Act's age-variable standard poses as a well-tailored limit on its application. But in
practice it is yet another I know it when I see it' provision."). Educators must again
perform statutory interpretation on the fly to determine what exactly is “inappropriate" or "unsuitable" because those terms go undefined. All the while, the specter of harsh penalties looms in the background. See Fla. Stat. § 1012.796; Fla.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:saluomt4fgyr3rfznfqhtclg/bafkreiepxycpl7eesa4zjz7eezlnl54tf6b4j243u2wem522tsepxa7api)
![State’s Brief misrepresenting the law
Page: 30 of 54
….
That is a plain misreading of the statute. HB 1069 requires the removal of any
material from a school library that, among other things, is "pornographic" or "Idlepicts
or describes sexual conduct." Fla. Stat. S 1006.28(2)(a)2.b.(I)-(II). To help identify any
existing materials that run afoul of these requirements, the law created a procedure where parents, guardians, or "[a] resident of the county" can raise these materials for government review. See id. § 1006.28(2)(a)2.b. But the law is clear that "if the district
school board finds that any material meets the requirements... the school district shall discontinue use of the material." Id. § 1006.28(2)(a)2.b. (emphasis added).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:saluomt4fgyr3rfznfqhtclg/bafkreihjoauxhvatpu54zjvotaet3clqxpo6lsc3qjtpm33xsqtsibpv4e)
FL public school parents who believe in preserving access to information in public education and libraries. https://www.fftrp.org/florida_censorship_attempts