A federal court has declared unconstitutional the two provisions of state legislation that criminalized the distribution of obscene material to minors in public libraries and bookshops.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, along with others, challenged the law on behalf of public libraries and a coalition of booksellers and patrons of bookshops.

John Williams, ACLU of Arkansas’ Legal Director said: “This decision reaffirms our position that Act 372 is an unconstitutional and dangerous attack on freedom of expression.” Our libraries and bookstores provide critical spaces for exploration, learning and connection. The court’s decision to strike down these provisions has protected the rights of Arkansans to access information and ideas without fear of censorship.

Holly Dickson said that the decision was an important victory for intellectual freedom.

1776 Coalition Sponsored Join the Fight against Evil Ever since the serpent entered the Garden of Eden, evil has fought to overcome good. What we’ve seen infecting America these last few years is an extension of that evil. The Coalition for Jewish Values is fighting all these fronts—from Pennsylvania Avenue—to main street—to anywhere common sense and Biblical Values are under attack. Will you stand with us in this fight?.

Dickson stated that “This was a deliberate attempt to impose totalitarianism, and this victory is a testimony to the courage and fortitude of librarians, book sellers, and readers who refused intimidation.” “Arkansans should live in a state that promotes intellectual freedom, and this decision ensures that libraries will remain safe havens for the exchange of information and ideas.”

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has vowed that he will appeal the decision.

A section of the law made it a misdemeanor to give certain materials to minors. This could have resulted in a maximum year’s jail time.

A second section mandated that libraries, city councils, and county quorum court follow a new process when evaluating the request of a citizen to remove or move a book from the permanent collection of a public library.

In July 2023, U.S. district judge Timothy L. Brooks issued a preliminary order preventing two sections of law from coming into effect. Brooks announced a ruling on the case, Monday. He noted that the case had not changed since the preliminary order was issued.

The Act’s Sections 1 and 5, which are vaguely phrased, can be interpreted in many ways. Section 1 violates due process rights for professional librarians and book sellers and First Amendment rights for library and bookstore patrons. Section 5 allows local officials to censor books that they feel do not meet the standards of ‘appropriateness’ to read by citizens and encourages (if not even permits) content and viewpoint restrictions on protected speech with no compelling government purpose,” Brooks wrote.

Brooks pointed out that before Act 372, Arkansas already made it illegal to distribute obscene material to minors. However, librarians received special immunity if they acted within the scope and duties of their employment.

Brooks wrote: “It appears that Arkansas was more concerned about librarians before the passage of Act 372 that they were protected from unfounded claims and prosecutions that waste time.” “Times are different.”

Plaintiffs claimed that the law is vague and contains undefined terms, which could cause the librarians and bookstores plaintiffs to fear prosecution as they do not know what they need to do to comply with it.

Brooks stated that in order to avoid criminal prosecutions, booksellers and librarians will have to restrict older minors and adults access to books with even a small amount of sexual content.

Brooks wrote that such books will have to be placed in places where minors can’t see them or reach them. This could include high shelves, locked rooms or even on high shelves. The State does not provide any legitimate government reason for such restrictions on the public’s right to free speech.

Brooks determined that Section 1 Act 372 was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment rights of Arkansans for two reasons. First, the law is too broad because it restricts speech in a way that the Constitution does not allow and violates Arkansans’ First Amendment rights. Second, the terms used, like “harmful to children,” are so vague that they do not provide enough information to librarians and book sellers about what conduct is prohibited. This violates their right to due process.

Brooks stated that the state Legislature had the option of tailoring a law more narrowly, but chose not to. Brooks says that this leaves booksellers and librarians with no choice but to restrict access to older adults and juveniles to materials in a way that is unconstitutional.

Brooks wrote: “If the General Assembly passed Section 1 to protect minors against inappropriate sexual content being displayed in bookstores and libraries, it will only achieve this end at the cost of everyone else’s First Amendment right.” The law deputizes booksellers and librarians as agents of censorship. When motivated by fear of prison time, they are likely to shelve or discard only books suitable for young children. This is why Section 1 of the law is unconstitutionally broad.”

Brooks found that the vagueness of the law would allow for arbitrary and discriminatory application and that it was constitutionally invalid because it violated the due process rights of librarians and booksellers by subjecting them criminal prosecutions without clearly defining prohibited conduct.

Brooks stated that the provision in the law relating to challenging materials’ appropriateness is not limited only to sexual content, and the law doesn’t define “appropriateness”. A book challenger can target any expressions of ideas he or she finds inappropriate.

After a challenger submits their grievance, Section 5 says it must be sent to “a committee consisting of library staff” for screening to determine if the challenged material would be moved within the library collection into an area not accessible to minors.

Brooks wrote: “However Section 5 doesn’t suggest how a librarian would create a space ‘that’s not accessible to minors’.” “Also, confusingly, despite the provision, Section 5, is not restricted to challenges regarding appropriateness for minors. Any book that caters to any reader age could be challenged.”

The challenge would be over if the committee removed or separated the challenged materials. If the committee rejects a challenge, Brooks said, section 5 allows the challenger to appeal the decision of the committee to the governing authority that finances the library.

The Th