Defending The Right To Read And Receive Information In Public And School Libraries

These cases challenge policies and practices that remove books from public and school libraries, raising fundamental First Amendment questions about censorship and the public’s right to access information.

Democracy Forward filed amicus briefs on behalf of Read Freely Alabama in two related appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, urging the court to reaffirm that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.

Parnell et al. v. School Board of Escambia County, Florida

This case arises from decisions by a Florida school board to remove books from school libraries, prompting a legal challenge from authors, students, and families.

At the district court level, the court concluded that removing books from a public school library does not implicate the First Amendment right to receive information. Plaintiffs appealed that decision, arguing that the removals were driven by disagreement with the ideas expressed in the books and therefore constitute unconstitutional censorship.

In its amicus brief, Democracy Forward explains that the First Amendment has long been understood to protect not only the right to speak, but also the right to receive information and ideas. The brief argues that this right is directly implicated when government officials remove books from libraries, particularly when those decisions are based on viewpoint or ideology.

The brief also emphasizes that libraries are central to the exercise of this right, serving as key spaces where individuals – especially students – access knowledge, explore ideas, and engage with diverse perspectives. Removing books because of disagreement with their content undermines that role and restricts access to constitutionally protected information.

Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson

This case challenges a Florida law and related policies that have led to widespread removal and restriction of books in public school libraries across the state.

Publishers, authors, and others brought the case to challenge these actions, arguing that the law enables viewpoint-based censorship and interferes with students’ ability to access books and ideas. The district court recognized that the First Amendment analysis centers on both authors’ rights to reach their audiences and students’ rights to receive information.

In its amicus brief, Democracy Forward emphasizes that the right to receive information is a well-established principle grounded in decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The brief highlights that book removals cannot be justified simply by labeling content as inappropriate without a meaningful evaluation of a work’s educational, literary, or social value. It also underscores that access to library materials cannot depend on whether individuals can obtain those materials elsewhere – libraries exist precisely to ensure broad and equitable access to information.

Across both cases, Democracy Forward’s filings make clear that the First Amendment protects the freedom to read, learn, and engage with a full range of ideas—and that government actors cannot restrict that access based on ideology or political preference.