![]() Lead attorney John Adams argued at a hearing on Tuesday that Act 372 unfairly restricts librarians’ speech and is unclear about how librarians can avoid the criminal charges put forth in the law.īrooks concluded that the challenged portions of the law were too vague and could lead to arbitrary interpretation and “content-based restrictions” that violate the First Amendment right to freedom of expression, which would cause the plaintiffs “irreparable harm.” The 18 plaintiffs include libraries, bookstores, advocacy groups and individual library patrons. Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. District Judge Timothy Brooks granted plaintiffs’ request to enjoin two of the five sections of Act 372 of 2023, which would alter libraries’ material reconsideration processes and create criminal liability for librarians who distribute content that some consider “obscene” or “harmful to minors.”īrooks’ decision means much of Act 372 will not go into effect in the next few days as originally scheduled. This article was originally published in Arkansas Advocate.Ī federal judge temporarily blocked portions of the law that would have changed how Arkansas libraries handle controversial material and put the availability of certain books in the hands of elected officials.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |