September 10, 2024
Publishers File Additional Amicus Brief Supporting First Amendment Rights of Llano County Library Patrons in Full Court Rehearing of Little v. Llano County
On September 10, 2024, AAP and allies filed a second amicus brief in support of Texas public library patron plaintiffs in Little v. Llano County following the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order of a full court rehearing of its June 6, 2024 decision. That earlier decision largely—but not entirely—upheld a preliminary injunction against the unconstitutional removal of 17 books from the shelves of the Llano County public library system.
The brief authors include the Association of American Publishers, The Authors Guild, publishers of books removed from Llano County public library shelves including Candlewick Press, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing, Penguin Random House, Scholastic, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks, and prominent authors Stephen King and James Patterson.
AAP and allies filed an earlier amicus brief in June 2023 when the Fifth Circuit initially heard the appeal.
“We are doubling down on our support for Llano County residents’ right to access constitutionally protected books,” commented Matthew Stratton, Deputy General Counsel, Association of American Publishers. “We urge the Fifth Circuit to reaffirm that the removal of books from public library shelves based on official disapproval of the books’ ideas violates the First Amendment.”
Highlights from the amicus brief include:
- “Amici write because they and their members are the real speakers here. The Banned Books are their speech. These books and the subjects they explore have been among the most frequently targeted in recent years. To protect readers’ right to engage with these ideas—and with a diversity of other ideas across the ideological and experiential spectrum—the Court should reaffirm that the removal of books from public library shelves based on official disapproval of the books’ ideas violates the First Amendment.”
- “Amicus Stephen King has long been a champion of free speech, an opponent of censorship, and a supporter of libraries as vital community institutions. The panel-stage majority and dissent disagreed about how King would view this case. King wishes to set the record straight on this issue: In his view, those who would remove books from public libraries because they disagree with the ideas they contain are the real Library Police.”
- “The son of a librarian, amicus James Patterson has been a strong proponent of libraries and the right to read, and an opponent of book bans… Some of his bestselling novels for children and teens, including his Maximum Ride series, have been targeted in other states’ book bans.”
- “This is not the time to sweep away the time-honored precedents that have protected the intellectual independence of public libraries from majoritarian impulses. The instinct to censor disfavored ideas and voices is not unique to this moment, nor to a particular political party… If Defendants’ government speech argument is accepted, the public library will be rendered just another tool of partisan propaganda.”
- “[C]ed[ing] the institutional independence of the public library to the whims of whomever happens to be holding elected office at the moment… is a shortsighted and dangerous game, at odds with the best of our democratic traditions and constitutional values, and antithetical to an informed citizenry.”
- “In this fraught moment, the Court should protect the civic role of the public library as a repository of diverse ideas, the quintessential locus of citizens’ right to receive information… [I]t should affirm that while books are for everyone, not every book is for every person, and therefore libraries must be allowed to let patrons choose the right books for them and their children.”
The full brief can be found here.