FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday struck down key parts of an Arkansas law aimed at penalizing librarians and booksellers for providing "harmful" materials to minors. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks ruled the law unconstitutional, raising serious concerns about its chilling effects on free access to literature.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, who oversees the implementation of the law, expressed disappointment but reaffirmed his commitment to appeal the decision. “I respect the court’s ruling and will appeal,” he stated, making clear the state's intention to continue pursuing the controversial legislation.
This law, signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders earlier this year, sought to create new processes whereby library materials could be challenged and relocated away from children's access. Such provisions, according to Judge Brooks, effectively deputize librarians and booksellers as agents of censorship driven by the fear of criminal penalties. He asserted, “When motivated by the fear of jail time, it is likely they will shelve only books fit for young children and segregate or discard the rest.”
The Central Arkansas Library System led the charge against the law, arguing it could lead to self-censorship and deter libraries from carrying titles subject to challenge. Holly Dickson, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, hailed the ruling as a significant victory against what she referred to as attempts at “thought policing.” She added, “This victory over totalitarianism is a testimony to the courage of librarians, booksellers, and readers who refused to bow to intimidation.”
Supporters of the law, including Gov. Sanders, maintain their stance, asserting the need for regulations to protect minors from inappropriate content. “Act 372 is just common sense: schools and libraries shouldn’t put obscene material in front of our kids,” she stated, emphasizing her intention to work alongside AG Griffin to bolster the appeal process. ”We will uphold Arkansas law.”
This ruling highlights broader tensions as lawmakers across several conservative states scale up efforts to restrict access to library materials and books. Similar laws have already been introduced or enacted in states like Iowa, Indiana, and Texas, with many advocating for increased parental control over educational content.
The new ruling from Judge Brooks not only affirms the potential for libraries to maintain diverse collections free from censorship but also shines a light on the continuing battle between free speech advocates and state actors aiming to regulate literature for minors. While the appeal moves forward, the case exemplifies the complex dynamics at play between individual freedoms and societal norms.
