Flameless Book-Burning-Arkansas Act 372 and Children’s Access to Information

Books are magical.   Every since print media became freely available, countless young people have been airlifted out of their current reality by the words and ideas of authors.   Stories can be a source of comfort, inspiration and reassurance during the everyday trials of childhood and adolescence, and a real-life line for those suffering in especially difficult situations.  Therefore, a plot to suppress this seems like an act of evil worthy of Cruella De Vil, the Trunchbull or Sauron himself.  Nevertheless, a legislative scheme to do just that was signed into law by the Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee (DATE, please). Although Law 372 has been blocked by a federal court due to violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the legal battle is expected to continue.

Had the legislation come into force, librarians would have faced potential criminal liability for distributing material deemed “obscene” or “harmful to minors”.  Obviously, what constitutes “harmful” or even sexual content is a very subjective question. As a result, the task of discerning which books might fall foul of the ban would have been near impossible for librarians, and achieving any form of consistent, rational and predictable interpretation of the law would have been equally challenging for the courts.

All of this would have been true in any circumstances, but the bitter divisions between opposing poles of the US political spectrum only increase the scope for clashes.   What has been badged as a reform to protect children would potentially turn courtrooms into battlefields in a culture war, injuring library staff and young people as part of the collateral damage. The truth is that complying with Law 372 would not only have meant restricting what minors could borrow, it would also have demanded libraries to be vigilant about what they could pick up and browse.  Perhaps, the safest option, which would have pleased the supporters of such draconian proposals, would be to corral all under eighteens into a safe containment zone, and ensure that they could not get their sticky little mitts on anything potentially offensive or controversial, but it is easy to imagine how thrilled tweens and teenagers would be with that solution.

To add insult to injury, this proposal would also have been woefully ineffective.  Some books targeted at primary school age children have been flagged as inappropriate by some conservative voices, for instance a campaigner in Florida filed a challenge to one of the Marc Brown Arthur stories, arguing that it might “damage the souls” of readers.

The real-world task of finding “safe” books for children would be fraught with controversy. For instance, even the beloved counting narrative for toddlers, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, has been interpreted as having an LBGTQ+ subtext, and would therefore, presumably not be well received in some quarters.

Furthermore, undoubtedly, passing legislation which cannot be applied with predictability and certainty violates the Rule of Law, especially when it is backed by criminal sanction. This would be very problematic, independently of the entirely valid concerns about its constitutionality, but there is a further troubling dimension to all of this, viz the implications for children’s rights.

Irrespective of the way the Arkansas debate is construed, it cannot be coherently defended on the basis of furthering the interests of young people.   If the material that this American State seeks to ban from distribution is genuinely and demonstrably harmful to minors, then why would it remain lawful for parents and carers to allow them to have access to it in a private setting?   Surely, if the danger was so manifest, then public authorities ought to be stepping in to protect young people from harm behind closed doors.

On the other hand, if the danger is not objectively demonstrable, but a matter of subjective concern only, why is the State stepping in to restrict the freedom of young people?  Why subject a class of citizens to a detriment which cannot robustly be justified by reference to either their interests or that of third parties.?

All in all, it is hard to construe this as anything other than a sally in the war for hearts and minds.  At the end of the day, politicians are heavily invested in the ideas and values to which children are exposed, not just because of their present vulnerability, but also with one eye on their future power as voters and civic actors, and it goes without saying, the law should not be used as an instrument in what is essentially an ideological struggle. The role of the legal framework is to restrain liberties only where there is some pressing and demonstrable societal need, not to further a particular cause, where it is being championed by the left or right.

Having said all of the above, it is of course crucial to bear in mind that, so far, this is in many respects a good news story. Concerned groups challenged an unworkable and oppressive piece of legislation, and the judiciary did its job in keeping the law within constitutional bounds.  It remains to be seen how the saga will play out, but for now at least, it is heartening to see that this is a cause around which people were willing to rally.  No doubt, the experience of reading as children themselves was a powerful motivator for the adults campaigning and litigating, because as G K Chesterton famously observed:

“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist.  Children already know the dragons exist.  Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.”

Further Reading

Criminal Liability for Librarians : The Fight Against US Rightwing Book Bans The Guardian (5 Aug 2023) https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/aug/05/criminal-liability-librarians-us-rightwing-book-bans-arkansas-democracy-forward

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Two Sections of Arkansas’ Library Obscenity Law Arkansas Advocate (29 July 2023) https://arkansasadvocate.com/2023/07/29/federal-judge-temporarily-blocks-two-sections-of-arkansas-library-obscenity-law/

Arthur Children’s Book Faces Potential Florida Ban Over Claims It “Damaged Souls” The Guardian (28 July 2023) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/28/arthurs-birthday-childrens-book-ban-florida

Matt Bellasay, “The Very Hungry Caterpillar is Gay Culture” The Is Gay Culture (10 June 2021) https://gay.mattbellassai.com/p/very-gay-caterpillar

Aardvark, National Geographic https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/aardvark