Court rules state’s expanded “Don’t Say Gay” provisions are unconstitutionally vague, violating the First Amendment and censoring acclaimed literature.
A federal judge in Florida has struck down major parts of the state’s expanded “Don’t Say Gay” law, ruling that its book banning provisions violate the First Amendment. Approved in 2023, the law not only restricted classroom discussions of LGBTQ identities but also made it easier for any county resident to demand the removal of books from school libraries.
Under the law, once a complaint was filed schools had five days to pull the contested book from shelves, making it unavailable while under review. Districts were required to set up procedures for handling complaints, but those rules were criticized for favoring would-be censors and sidelining parents who opposed bans.
The law required schools to remove any books flagged for “sexual content,” “pornographic content,” or “obscenity,” including those that describe sexual conduct. The vague, low bar for removal led several districts to pull award-winning novels and young adult classics from their shelves.
Flagged titles included staples of high school English such as The Color Purple, Looking for Alaska, Slaughterhouse-Five, The Handmaid’s Tale, Beloved, The Freedom Writers Diary, How the García Girls Lost Their Accents, Kaffir Boy, Native Son, and The Bluest Eye.
Florida already banned materials that met the U.S. Supreme Court definition of “obscenity” or were legally “harmful to minors.” But the new law went much further, prompting districts to purge any content deemed “age-inappropriate” from classrooms and libraries.
In Hillsborough County, serving the Tampa area, the district barred works by William Shakespeare — including Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet — for referencing sexuality or including cross-dressing characters.
In Escambia County, serving the Pensacola area, officials removed more than 2800 books, including dictionaries such as the American Heritage Children’s Dictionary, Webster’s Dictionary for Students, and Merriam-Webster’s Elementary Dictionary. As reported by Popular Information, the dictionaries were purged because they included definitions of sexual anatomy and terms like “gay” and “lesbian.”
In August 2024, the Authors Guild joined major publishers — including Penguin Random House, Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks — along with authors Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas, in a lawsuit challenging Florida’s book ban law.
The lawsuit argues that Florida’s Department of Education told librarians and educators to “err on the side of caution,” fostering a climate of fear that encouraged overzealous removals of acclaimed literature and giving parents or residents unchecked power to demand removals based on personal objections — even when the works are not “pornographic.”
The lawsuit cited instances where students sought acclaimed works of literature only to find they had been removed for allegedly violating the law.
On August 13, U.S. District Judge Carlos Mendoza of the Middle District of Florida ruled that the law’s book-banning provisions were unconstitutionally overbroad.
Mendoza also found that Florida’s book-banning provisions fail to define the criteria for determining whether a book is “obscene,” “pornographic,” “describes sexual conduct,” or is “inappropriate” for certain ages or grades. The vague standards create an “I know it when I see it” test that relies on personal opinions rather than a neutral benchmark. As a result, Mendoza argued, the provisions chill free speech and violate the First Amendment.
Additionally, Mendoza pointed out that material deemed inappropriate for younger students may not be considered inappropriate for older ones. He said the law forces educators and librarians to “make a ‘series of difficult judgment calls about what is obscene for children of different ages.'”
Mendoza noted that some districts flagged and removed non-obscene books in an effort to comply with the law. Citing the list of removed titles, he wrote, “None of these books are obscene. The restrictions placed on these books are thus unreasonable in light of the purpose of school libraries.”
Most importantly, Mendoza rejected Florida’s claim that schools are engaging in “government speech” when they purge books, which would allow removals for any reason, including viewpoint discrimination. In 2023, former Florida Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) Ashley Moody argued the state had the right to make “value-based judgments” about school materials, even comparing challenged books to “Nazi propaganda.”
Mendoza emphasized the importance of relying on school librarians’ professional judgment to determine book appropriateness, rejecting Florida’s claim that removals were merely part of normal “curation” of library collections.
“Here, the government is not engaging in expressive activity,” he wrote. “Despite Defendant’s best efforts to frame it as such, the statutory provision at issue does not involve discretion of government employees in curating an appropriate collection of library books that are ‘worth reading.’ … [T]he statute here mandates the removal of books that contain even a single reference to the prohibited subject matter, regardless of the holistic value of the book individually or as part of a larger collection.”
The Authors Guild hailed Mendoza’s ruling as a victory for free expression, diverse literature, and authors’ voices.
“This victory affirms what we’ve always known — that literature has the power to expand worlds, foster empathy, and help young people understand themselves and their experiences,” Mary Rasenberger, the CEO of the Authors Guild, said in a statement. “Book bans don’t just censor words on a page; they silence authors’ lived experiences and deny students access to the stories that help them navigate an increasingly complex world.”
Stay informed on LGBTQ rights, education, and free speech battles — sign up for Metro Weekly’s free digital magazine at www.metroweekly.com/subscribe.
Grindr, the gay hookup app for men seeking sex with men, reportedly prevents users from adding "no Zionists" to their profile.
404 Media first reported that several users who tried to add "no Zionists" to their profiles were blocked from doing so. Those users were likely signaling opposition to Israel's military campaign in Gaza or expressing support for the Palestinian cause.
When 404 Media reporter Samantha Cole tried adding "No Zionists" to a new Grindr account, she received an error message reading, "The following are not allowed: no zionist, no zionists" -- the same message reported by users who had tipped her off.
Baylor University, a Baptist college in Waco, Texas, is rescinding a $643,000 grant it received to study the inclusion of LGBTQ people and women in the church.
The grant, awarded to Baylor’s Center for Church and Community Impact in the School of Social Work, came from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation, which funds progressive, faith-related initiatives focused on church-state separation, interfaith projects, and social justice.
The money was intended to "help foster inclusion and belonging in the church" by funding research into "the disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women within congregations," with the goal of encouraging more inclusive practices.
Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador has directed schools not to allow teachers to post signs or banners that say "Everyone is Welcome Here," claiming the message is partisan and violates a new state law banning political displays in classrooms.
"These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota, following the 2016 election," Labrador wrote in an opinion issued in response to a request from the Idaho Department of Education seeking clarity on how the law would be interpreted and enforced.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.