A federal judge has struck down significant portions of Arkansas’ Act 372 of 2023, a controversial law that would have criminalized the distribution of certain library materials deemed “harmful to minors” and given elected officials the authority to decide which books belong in public libraries. U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks ruled that these provisions violated the First Amendment, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over censorship, free speech, and access to public information.
Background on Act 372
Signed into law by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Act 372 aimed to reshape the way Arkansas libraries handle challenged materials. It introduced provisions that would:
- Make it a Class A misdemeanor for librarians to “furnish” items deemed harmful to minors.
- Shift the decision-making authority for challenged books from library professionals to elected city or county officials.
Proponents argued the law was necessary to keep “pornographic” or “inappropriate” materials out of children’s hands. Opponents countered that the law would stifle access to diverse ideas and target materials reflecting marginalized communities, such as LGBTQ+ topics.
Judge Brooks’ Decision
In his ruling, Judge Brooks invalidated two critical sections of the law:
Criminal Liability for Librarians (Section 1)
Brooks found that Section 1, which criminalized the distribution of harmful materials to minors, was overly vague. The law did not provide clear definitions for terms such as “furnish,” “present,” or “make available,” leaving librarians and booksellers at risk of prosecution for actions as simple as shelving a book.
The judge noted that the provision could lead to broad censorship, as library staff might feel compelled to remove or restrict access to any book containing sexual content, regardless of its artistic, scientific, or literary value. He further criticized the law for failing to differentiate between the needs of younger children and older minors, potentially limiting access for all age groups.
Elected Officials Over Library Materials (Section 5)
Section 5 would have allowed library decisions about challenged books to be appealed to city or county elected officials, who would have the final say. Brooks highlighted the absence of clear standards for what constitutes “appropriateness,” making the process vulnerable to personal or political bias.
“This section invites censorship based on content,” Brooks wrote, warning that it could allow “the views of a vocal few” to dictate public access to library materials. The lack of procedural safeguards, such as requiring elected officials to read the books in question, further compounded the issue.
The Legal Challenge
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of 18 plaintiffs, including the Central Arkansas Library System, Fayetteville Public Library, Arkansas Library Association, independent bookstores, and advocacy organizations such as the Freedom to Read Foundation and the Authors Guild.
They argued that Act 372 would chill free speech and create a hostile environment for libraries and bookstores. Judge Brooks previously issued a temporary injunction against the challenged provisions in July 2023, days before the law was set to take effect.
Precedent and Context
Judge Brooks referenced a 2004 Arkansas Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law banning the display of materials deemed harmful to minors. That ruling found the law unconstitutional because it did not distinguish between different age groups of minors. Brooks upheld this precedent, emphasizing that the state legislature had failed to craft a narrowly tailored law to address its stated concerns.
He also noted that Arkansas law already prohibits providing obscene materials to minors but protects librarians acting within the scope of their duties. Act 372 sought to remove this protection, which Brooks called a significant overreach.
Crawford County and Broader Implications
The ruling follows a related case in Crawford County, where library officials had segregated LGBTQ+ children’s books into restricted sections. County officials cited Act 372 as a basis for their actions. In September, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes ordered the books returned to general circulation, ruling that their segregation violated the First Amendment.
Brooks pointed to this case as evidence of the confusion and potential misuse that Act 372 could foster, highlighting statements from Crawford County officials who admitted they had no clear understanding of the law’s requirements.
Reactions
- Supporters of Act 372: Attorney General Tim Griffin announced plans to appeal the decision, maintaining that the law was designed to protect children from harmful materials. State Senator Dan Sullivan, the bill’s primary sponsor, has argued for defunding libraries affiliated with the American Library Association, which opposes censorship.
- Opponents: Nate Coulter, executive director of the Central Arkansas Library System and a plaintiff in the case, celebrated the ruling as a victory for intellectual freedom. “This decision reaffirms that libraries should not be agents of government censorship,” Coulter said.
Uncertain Future for Act 372
While key provisions of the law have been struck down, other sections remain in effect, including rules for school libraries. A Democrat-sponsored bill to repeal Act 372 entirely has been introduced for the 2025 legislative session, signaling that the debate is far from over.
National Implications
The case underscores a growing national debate over the role of libraries, free speech, and the limits of government authority in regulating public access to information. As Arkansas prepares to appeal, the outcome could set a significant legal precedent for similar efforts in other states.
