Supreme Court Rules for First Amendment in U.S. v. Stevens

In one of the most important cases involving books in many years, the U.S. Supreme Court last week overturned a federal law banning the depiction of animal cruelty as "a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth." When it was approved in 1999, the law was justified as an attempt to suppress "crush videos," which were sold to sexual fetishists. However, the law banned the sale of any book, magazine, or video of an animal being intentionally hurt. The law was so broad that it could have applied to books with pictures of bullfighting, including Ernest Hemingway's Death in the Afternoon. A bookseller convicted under the law could have been sentenced to up to five years in prison.

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression joined members of Media Coalition, a trade association, in filing an amicus brief in the case of U.S. v. Stevens. While the government claimed it would use the law to prosecute only the most egregious violators, Media Coalition argued that the law would have a chilling effect on a broad range of First Amendment-protected speech, from popular films to animal welfare advocacy materials.

While the statute itself was alarming, the government's attempt to justify the law could have weakened protections for a wide range of controversial material. Until now, the Supreme Court has declared that only a few narrow categories of speech, including obscenity and child pornography, can be regulated by the government. In the Stevens case, however, the government claimed the power to apply a balancing test in determining what speech is protected. It argued that speech with little social value can be banned if it causes harm. However, the 8-1 decision by the Court strongly restated its view that the government may not determine what speech has value. The First Amendment gives that right to the American people.


Sixth Circuit Supports Booksellers in ABFFE v. Cordray

In an important victory for First Amendment rights, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared on April 15 that an Ohio statute cannot be used to prosecute booksellers and others who post material with sexual content that is not obscene on their websites. The law could have applied to jacket covers and book excerpts. The court said the law banning electronic communication of material that is "harmful to minors" should be construed narrowly to include only communications sent by an adult to a specific minor.

ABFFE joined the Association of American Publishers, the Freedom to Read Foundation, the Sexual Health Network, Inc. and others in challenging the law in 2002. The original law also banned the sale of a wide range of non-electronic content - including "foul language" and depictions or descriptions of nudity, extreme violence, or criminal activity.Those restrictions were held unconstitutional earlier in the case.

ABFFE Seeks Plaintiffs in Alaska and Massachusetts

With the conclusion of the Ohio case, ABFFE and its partners have successfully challenged eight Internet censorship laws - two federal and six state statutes. But two more states recently banned the electronic communication of material that is "harmful to minors" - Alaska and Massachusetts. As a result, ABFFE is seeking bookstores to become plaintiffs in new lawsuits.

The Massachusetts law was quickly passed in response to a controversial court decision that resulted in the release of a man who had sent sexual material to a minor. The court ruled that his offense was not covered by current law, which applied only to non-electronic communications. The Alaska measure, which will likely receive the Governor's approval soon, is part of a bill that bans the sale to minors of all material that is "harmful," including books and magazines.

While ABFFE supports laws that prohibit an adult from sending inappropriate sexual material to a particular minor, it will continue to oppose restrictions that ban the posting of material on Web sites that is protected by the First Amendment. It will participate in the Alaska and Massachusetts lawsuits that will be filed by Media Coalition. Plaintiffs will probably include national associations representing publishers, librarians and others. However, local plaintiffs, including booksellers, are also needed. Cases are usually resolved without a trial, and the plaintiff's only definite obligation will be signing an affidavit drafted by Media Coalition attorneys. Interested booksellers should contact Chris Finan at (212) 587-4025 or chris@abffe.com.

ALA Releases List of Most Frequently Challenged Books

The American Library Association has posted its annual list of the most frequently challenged books. According to the Office for Intellectual Freedom, 460 books were challenged in 2009. Topping the list is Lauren Myracle's ttyl series, written entirely in the dialect of instant messages. Challengers complained about sexual content, offensive language, and drug use in the books. Stephanie Meyers' hugely popular Twilight series made its first appearance on the list, as did Jodi Picoult's My Sister's Keeper. Robert Cormier's The Chocolate War and Alice Walker's The Color Purple returned to the top 10 after a brief absence. List mainstays include J.D. Salinger's Catcher in the Rye and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird.

Speaking of banned books, it's not too early to think about participating in Banned Books Week, which will be celebrated from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2. The ALA has released Banned Books Week 2010 promotional materials and announced this year's slogan, "Think for Yourself and Let Others Do the Same."


Show Your Support for Freadom!

ABFFE's popular "freadom" t-shirts, buttons, bookmarks, bumper stickers and more are available during Banned Books Week and all year round. 

To order online, visit the ABFFE store.