Florida school district must restore books with LGBTQ+ content under settlement
Florida school district must restore books with LGBTQ+ content under settlement
A school district in northeast Florida must put back in libraries three dozen books as part of a settlement with students and parents.
A school district in northeast Florida must put back in libraries three dozen books as part of a settlement reached Thursday with students and parents who sued over what they said was an unlawful decision to limit access to dozens of titles containing LGBTQ+ content.
Under the agreement the School Board of Nassau County must restore access to three dozen titles including “And Tango Makes Three,” a children’s picture book based on a true story about two male penguins that raised a chick together at New York’s Central Park Zoo. Authors Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson were plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the district, which is about 35 miles (about 60 kilometers) northeast of Jacksonville along the Georgia border.
The suit was one of several challenges to book bans since state lawmakers last year passed, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed into law, legislation making it easier to challenge educational materials that opponents consider pornographic and obscene. Last month six major publishers and several well-known authors filed a federal lawsuit in Orlando arguing that some provisions of the law violate the First Amendment rights of publishers, authors and students.
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't live in the US and am not an expert on any of this State vs Fed stuff but it seems to be the case that the government at the State level CAN restrict speech and descriminate against you based on your sexual orientation? Because they're targeting books/speech that are relavant to people, partly at least, due to them being in the LGBTQIA+ community. And it's up to YOU to defend your right to access that speech by taking legal action? So a kind of 'guilty until proven innocent' adjacent scenario. I'm so confused and maybe I'm missing something but it sure FEELS like the 1st amendment is optional?
I assume they could also therefore remove books based on the race of the characters in the books or because of the subject matter being of particular relavance to people of colour? But I assume that's happened before and been tested legally and that's the process that's happening now with the LGBTQIA+ book bans? Is it simply that the LGBTQIA+ community isn't yet as robust in their advocacy, lobbying & litigation as they need to be? That they don't have the equivalent of the NAACP on their side? Should they have to? Isn't the 1st ammendment and anti-descrimination law pretty clear?
As someone living outside the USA, I have struggled to understand what's going on there and why it's allowed to happen when the 1st ammendment exists expressly to stop the government from suppressing speech, the restriction of which can be damaging to vulnerable communites. Take the story of Roy and Silo, about a same sex couple (of penguins for goodness sake?!) raising a child together. This being banned sends a message to children of same sex parents that there is something wrong with their parents / family unit. I find that disturbing enough, but to the child, it could be traumatizing. How would parents explain to their child that their favourite book has been removed from their library purely because the subject of the story is a family just like theirs?!
The first amendment doesn't stop politicians from acting in bad faith. There's no consequences for passing bad laws. Politicians often use this tactic to make headlines and make their opponents waste resources. The only thing politicians have to worry about is getting elected again.
We need to have politicians automatically suspended when they sign a bill that is found unconstitutional. The politician should only be able to be re-instated by a majority popular vote, to ensure the people still believe that representative acts in the good faith of the people.
How many times are voters going to turn up to defend these antics. Are you going to show up every other weekend to revote in Desantis? Or let him be removed from office for trampling on the rights of the people and wasting your time and taxpayer money.
The issue is that some laws make complete sense, but you can have an activist judge or the SC declare it unconstitutional. Legislatures are elected and they can't be expected to know how a law can be interpreted.
Even something as simple as a noise ordinance could be considered a first amendment violation in certain cases.
I live in Illinois, they passed an assault weapons ban last year. Of course the gun people claimed it was unconstitutional because of the 2nd amendment. It's not but someone tried to make that argument and there's a non-zero number of judges who would agree with them.
Alright, throw the bill onto the vote to re-instated them. Line 1 to re-instated Line 2: Do you think this bill should have passed.
If it gets a majority vote the legislative branch must write a full synopsis and bill to be voted on in the next congressional election (every other year) that would be an amendment to their state Constitution.
It won the popular vote twice, that represents what the people wanted.
Even then, a state constitution can't override the federal constitution. You would need an amendment at the federal level for every statute that violates it. There's still laws on the books that were perfectly legal at the time they were passed, but never got repealed. Although I do think that it should be required to repeal laws that are completely unconstitutional such as sundown laws. Some states will pass preemptive laws that are conditional on a change in opinion from the supreme Court.
Legislatures are elected and they can't be expected to know how a law can be interpreted.
Isn't that, like, the fucking job? CEOs can't be expected to know if a given task will lose money for the company. Doesn't matter if they were put in that position by a popular vote or a board vote
The people who wrote the constitution could have never imagined how it could be interpreted 250 years later.
They also wouldn't have to worry about losing their seat in the Senate for passing a law that was reinterpreted 250 years later.
Eg, why THE FUCK is Ryan Walters still in office?