Federal court strikes down parts of Arkansas censorship law that aimed to restrict access to certain library books

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A federal court has ruled that two key sections of Arkansas’s Act 372 aimed at censoring content in libraries and bookstores are unconstitutional. 

Sections 1 and 5 of the law, which were challenged by local libraries, bookstores, and advocacy groups, were struck down in a Dec. 23 judgment for being overly broad and too vague.

Section 1 of Act 372 sought to criminalize those working at a library or bookstore in Arkansas for “furnishing a harmful item to a minor.”

In essence, the courts declared that section 1 of Act 372 regulates more speech than the Constitution allows by aiming to criminalize librarians who “furnish” “inappropriate” books to minors.

For instance, what might be considered inappropriate for a 7-year-old could differ significantly from what is unsuitable for a 17-year-old. This broad application would require libraries to create “18 or older” sections, potentially stigmatizing books and readers who choose to browse there.

Judge Timothy L. Brooks wrote, “If the General Assembly’s purpose in passing Section 1 was to protect younger minors from accessing inappropriate sexual content in libraries and bookstores, the law would only achieve that end at the expense of everyone else’s First Amendment rights.”

The court noted that the law’s language left librarians and booksellers unsure about what conduct could lead to criminal liability. For example, it was unclear if simply shelving a book in a young adult section with sexual content could be deemed “furnishing” the material to minors. 

Section 5 of the law established guidelines for the selection, relocation, and retention of library materials. However, the court found it unconstitutionally vague, particularly in its use of terms like “appropriate” and its unclear requirements for restricting access to books.

Judge Brooks noted that the section would force libraries to “guess what level of security would be necessary” to meet the law’s requirements for making certain materials inaccessible.

Section 5 also uses the words “withdraw” and “relocate” for books that have been challenged as inappropriate. Withdrawing the book would restrict access and possibly limit free speech, whereas relocating the book may not. However, section 5 uses the terms interchangeably.

The law also required evaluators to screen books for “appropriateness” during the challenge process, leading to content-based restrictions on free speech unless the material met the legal definition of obscenity, which is already prohibited.

Section 5 stated that a book could not be withdrawn based on “viewpoints expressed within the material,” but because the appropriateness of the content is a matter of opinion, which viewpoints within the book could possibly sway, that guideline interferes with access to free speech, according to the court.

The court ruled that Sections 1 and 5 of Act 372 are void and of no effect, meaning those parts of the law cannot be enforced or implemented in libraries or bookstores in the state.