A weird state law lets Virginians sue books. Politicians are using it to dictate what we can read.

From FIRE:

Book bans seek to enlist the power of the state to dictate what each of us and our families may or may not read — and thus are sharply at odds with the First Amendment and our pluralist democracy.

That’s the message delivered by FIRE and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation in an amici curiae brief filed today with a Virginia state court tasked with determining whether two award-winning books, Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer” and Sarah J. Maas’ “A Court of Mist and Fury,” are legally obscene.

In May, two Virginia politicians filed a petition against the books in Virginia Beach Circuit Court, seeking declarations of obscenity that, pursuant to state law, would prohibit bookstores from selling either work. Their request invoked a rarely-used state law that allows Virginians to sue books and to compel their publishers and authors to defend them in court. After a retired state judge found “probable cause” that the works are “obscene for unrestricted viewing by minors,” the petitioners sought temporary restraining orders to bar commercial distribution of the book.

In today’s brief, FIRE and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation argue that neither book comes close to constituting obscenity as defined for minors under longstanding state and federal precedent. The books “will not appeal to or have value to every audience,” we recognize, but the First Amendment only requires that the books have “value to an audience” — and both plainly do.

Moreover, FIRE and Woodhull argue, book bans are antithetical to the First Amendment and the pluralist values it protects:

Some readers will choose not to purchase or read the books at issue in this case. Some retailers and some librarians will decline to place them on the shelves. Our Constitution reserves these choices for individuals and forbids them from the state. In our pluralist democracy, the First Amendment prescribes a remedy for audiences offended by protected speech: those who seek to avoid “bombardment of their sensibilities” may do so “simply by averting their eyes.” Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (1971). Declaring books obscene because they include discussions or depictions of sex would reprise a discredited era of censorship repudiated by decades of Supreme Court precedent.

Drawing a link between the “current national push to ban books discussing sexuality, identity, and other controversial topics” and the “increasing comfort with censorship that amicus FIRE has fought against for over twenty years on campuses nationwide,” our brief makes the case for freedom of thought.

Link to the rest at FIRE and here’s a link to a page where you can read the FIRE Brief.

FIRE stands for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. FIRE summarizes its mission as follows:

FIRE’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

PG hasn’t agreed with 100% of FIRE’s positions, but he does agree with a great deal of what FIRE advocates and the causes it takes to court.

2 thoughts on “A weird state law lets Virginians sue books. Politicians are using it to dictate what we can read.”

  1. Having read Sarah J. Maas’ work I have to conclude that the Virginian politicians are batshit crazy, and to wonder what will happen if they start reading modern romances? I can’t say that I think too highly of the retired judge and his ruling. And does the “fact” that the books are “obscene for unrestricted viewing by minors” mean that no non-minor is allowed to buy or read them?

    Given that all our Sarah J Maas titles are ebooks, does Virginia law require Amazon to have a special set of rules for selling into the state?

    Reply
  2. Hmm. I dug out the Virginia statute in question – and found that it is, essentially, completely in compliance with Miller. (Which, despite the claim by FIRE, is nowhere near an “exact” definition of “obscenity.”)

    Relevant text for what the Court must consider:

    1. The artistic, literary, medical, scientific, cultural and educational values, if any, of the book considered as a whole;

    2. The degree of public acceptance of the book, or books of similar character, within the county or city in which the proceeding is brought;

    6. The nature of classes of persons, including scholars, scientists, and physicians, for whom the book may not have prurient appeal, and who may be subject to exception pursuant to subsection G.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.