# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech: Crash Course Government and Politics #25

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bill of Rights

During the summer of 1787, a group of politicians, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, gathered in Philadelphia to draft a new U.S. Constitution.

Antifederalists, led by the first governor of Virginia, Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the Constitution. They felt the new constitution gave the federal government too much power at the expense of the states. They further argued that the Constitution lacked protections for people's individual rights.

The debate over whether to ratify the Constitution in several states hinged on the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would safeguard basic civil rights under the law. Fearing defeat, pro-constitution politicians, called Federalists, promised a concession to the antifederalists-a Bill of Rights.

James Madison drafted most of the Bill of Rights. Madison was a Virginia representative who would later become the fourth president of the United States. He created the Bill of Rights during the 1st United States Congress, which met from 1789 to 1791 - the first two years that President George Washington was in office.

The Bill of Rights, which was introduced to Congress in 1789 and adopted on December 15, 1791, includes the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Text

The First Amendment text reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
While the First Amendment protected freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition, subsequent amendments under the Bill of Rights dealt with the protection of other American values including the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury.

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Freedom of speech gives Americans the right to express themselves without having to worry about government interference. It's the most basic component of freedom of expression.

The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what types of speech is protected. Legally, material labeled as obscene has historically been excluded from First Amendment protection, for example, but deciding what qualifies as obscene has been problematic. Speech provoking actions that would harm others-true incitement and/or threats-is also not protected, but again determining what words have qualified as true incitement has been decided on a case-by-case basis.

Freedom of the Press

This freedom is similar to freedom of speech, in that it allows people to express themselves through publication.

There are certain limits to freedom of the press. False or defamatory statements-called libel-aren't protected under the First Amendment.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment, in guaranteeing freedom of religion, prohibits the government from establishing a "state" religion and from favoring one religion over any other.

While not explicitly stated, this amendment establishes the long-established separation of church and state.

Right to Assemble, Right to Petition

The First Amendment protects the freedom to peacefully assemble or gather together or associate with a group of people for social, economic, political or religious purposes. It also protects the right to protest the government.

The right to petition can mean signing a petition or even filing a lawsuit against the government.

First Amendment Court Cases

Here are landmark Supreme Court decisions related to the First Amendment.

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas court's decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.
Freedom of Religion:
Reynolds v. United States (1878): This Supreme Court case upheld a federal law banning polygamy, testing the limits of religious liberty in America. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids government from regulating belief but not from actions such as marriage.

Braunfeld v. Brown (1961): The Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring stores to close on Sundays, even though Orthodox Jews argued the law was unfair to them since their religion required them to close their stores on Saturdays as well.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): The Supreme Court ruled that states could not require a person to abandon their religious beliefs in order to receive benefits. In this case, Adell Sherbert, a Seventh-day Adventist, worked in a textile mill. When her employer switched from a five-day to six-day workweek, she was fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. When she applied for unemployment compensation, a South Carolina court denied her claim.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): This Supreme Court decision struck down a Pennsylvania law allowing the state to reimburse Catholic schools for the salaries of teachers who taught in those schools. This Supreme Court case established the "Lemon Test" for determining when a state or federal law violates the Establishment Clause-that's the part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from declaring or financially supporting a state religion.

Ten Commandments Cases (2005): In 2005, the Supreme Court came to seemingly contradictory decisions in two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments on public property. In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the Supreme Court ruled that the display of a six-foot Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capital was constitutional. In McCreary County v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two large, framed copies of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky courthouses violated the First Amendment.
Right to Assemble & Right to Petition:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): When Alabama Circuit Court ordered the NAACP to stop doing business in the state and subpoenaed the NAACP for records including their membership list, the NAACP brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the NAACP, which Justice John Marshall Harlan II writing: "This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations."

Edwards v. South Carolina (1962): On March 2, 1961, 187 Black students marched from Zion Baptist Church to the South Carolina State House, where they were arrested and convicted of breaching the peace. The Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision to reverse the convictions, arguing that the state infringed on the free speech, free assembly and freedom to petition of the students.

Sources

The Bill of Rights; White House.
History of the First Amendment; The University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Schenck v. United States; C-Span.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are-and aren't-protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word "parrhesia" means "free speech," or "to speak candidly." The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights-the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn't specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn't be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court's conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn't Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren't protected include:

Obscene material such as child pornography

Plagiarism of copyrighted material

Defamation (libel and slander)

True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren't protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the "clear and present danger" standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called "content neutrality." Content neutrality means the government can't censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn't bite-they ruled in favor of the students' right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don't apply in private schools.

Sources

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts.
Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts.
Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Freedom of Speech - Origins, First Amendment & Limits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Freedom of speech-the right to express opinions without government restraint-is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
Should Free Speech be Protected, No Matter What? (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Should Free Speech be Protected, No Matter What? (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Free Speech Be Protected, No Matter What? - UpFront

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no shortage of passionate opinions about cancel culture.

Depending on who you ask:

There isn't agreement on what "canceling" means.

What is cancel culture?

Cancel culture, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."

It's a simple but extremely broad concept, and it's difficult to determine its limits.

Does any kind of public backlash or reputational damage count as being canceled, or does it need to rise to a certain level? Does it have to be permanent? Can you be canceled by just a few people? Does cancellation have to involve an organized campaign, or can the term just apply to widespread, uncoordinated criticism? Can you cancel someone who has no public reputation? Can you cancel someone who's already dead?

All of these questions and more mean that many discussions about cancel culture devolve into arguments over whether or not a particular person was really canceled - which side steps questions of whether, and under what circumstances, cancellation is right or wrong.

RELATED: Is hate speech illegal?

Cancel culture and the First Amendment

Cancel culture can be hostile to free speech - but it also is free speech.

To be clear: Cancel culture doesn't violate the First Amendment, because the First Amendment only protects against the government punishing speech and doesn't apply to what private individuals do. But it impacts something the First Amendment is meant to protect: free expression. If a fear of being canceled causes people to self-censor, that harms the public discourse.

A good example of this would be the case of David Shor, a polling researcher who sent a tweet in May 2020 summarizing an academic paper that compared the effects of nonviolent and violent protests on election turnouts. Ari Trujillo-Wesler, co-founder of deep canvassing app OpenField, criticized the tweet for "minimizing black grief and rage to 'bad campaign tactic for the Democrats'" and later said the academic paper's analysis was "sloppy and underwhelming." Regardless of whether you agree with Shor, Trujillo-Wesler, neither, or both, this Twitter conversation enriched the public dialogue about the intersection of race, politics, social movements and public opinion. But because Shor was fired from his job shortly afterward, discussions like these are less likely to occur in the future. People like Shor will hesitate to weigh in on current events, and the public discourse will be poorer for it.

More than four in 10 people (45%) say they have, at least once, not expressed an opinion for fear of punishment, the Freedom Forum found in its Where America Stands survey. Nearly half (49%) have never shared a political opinion on social media.

At the same time, I'm not ready to declare that cancel culture is the enemy of free speech. It is, in essence, speech responding to other speech. To quote internet culture reporter Aja Romano's excellent explainer on the topic: "To many people, this process of publicly calling for accountability, and boycotting if nothing else seems to work, has become an important tool of social justice - a way of combatting, through collective action, some of the huge power imbalances that often exist between public figures with far-reaching platforms and audiences, and the people and communities their words and actions may harm."

Viewed in this light, cancel culture can actually play an important role in the democratic process. For instance, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo described it as cancel culture when people called for him to resign after reports were released that he covered up COVID-19 nursing home deaths and that several women had made allegations of sexual misconduct against him. Under the dictionary definition of cancel culture, Cuomo was right, but it's hard to argue that exposing the wrongdoing of an elected official and holding him accountable cuts against the values of free expression. If anything, it's exactly the kind of discourse the First Amendment was meant to protect.

It's hard to gauge how prevalent or how powerful cancel culture really is.

Writers like Michael Hobbes have argued that the panic about cancel culture is overblown and that media coverage of cancellations make them seem much more common than they actually are. This is a fair point. Incidents of cancel culture are probably overrepresented in the news because, let's face it, cancel culture is more fun to read and write about than say, the politics of judicial elections ( which you should probably read about after this). Still, that heightened awareness of cancel culture is likely to end up feeding its chilling effect on speech.

It's also been argued that canceI culture is a myth, because cancellations don't stick. People like Dave Chappelle, Louis C.K. and Morgan Wallen are often trotted out as examples of supposedly canceled celebrities who are still making a good living. But social media has made it possible to cancel even people who are not famous, and these people tend to have fewer resources to defend themselves or recover from cancellation. It can also depend on who is doing the canceling. Being canceled by liberal groups only made conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos' brand stronger, but cancellation by the Conservative Political Action Conference effectively ended his career.

Just over a third (37%) of people say there's nothing wrong with celebrities or others with strong opinions getting boycotted or "canceled" for making controversial comments online or in public, the Where America Stands survey found. Nearly three in 10 weren't sure.

Canceling individuals won't create real, lasting change - but holding institutions accountable might.

Separate from the debate over whether cancel culture is right or wrong or pro- or anti-free speech, is the question of whether it works as a tool for political and social change. As writer Freddie deBoer asks: "What is a plausible scenario through which [canceling] actually impacts the issues people claim to care about? How do you actually cancel your way to a better world? ...If problems are structural they can't be fixed with the removal of individuals."

The examples of cancellations that created lasting change that come to my mind are the civil rights movement's boycotts of segregated businesses and government institutions like Montgomery's bus system and New York City's schools. There's a lesson in that: Structural problems need structural solutions. Firing or shaming a few people is unlikely to even put a dent in those problems.
Lata Nott is a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum. Follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cancel Culture: Censorship, Civil Right or Something Else?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no shortage of passionate opinions about cancel culture and no real agreement on what canceling means.

# data[].attributes.headline
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hate speech is when a person or a group of people is attacked based on factors such as their gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, or disability. According to the Centers for Educational Justice & Community Engagement at the University of California Berkeley, hate speech includes written and verbal communication.

Of course, where the First Amendment becomes tricky is when it comes to people who have discriminatory ideologies against others, as they are also protected under the law. For example, one can vehemently disagree with the views of the Ku Klux Klan, which believes in white supremacy, but unless members of the Klan act on those words, their speech and right to assemble is protected under the Constitution.
When does hate speech become a crime?
Given that even hate speech is seen as a right, it's been largely protected in the courts. Some college campuses, for example, have tried to implement "speech codes," typically with good intentions of making campuses inclusive and ridding them of discriminatory language. In court, however, these acts have typically been found unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment and the right for people to speak freely.

While typically hate speech has to be acted on to turn into a crime, there is a special exception called the "fighting words" clause, which stipulates that if someone uses words to "incite an immediate breach of peace", then it's no longer protected. The example the ACLU gives is if a white student directed a racial slur at a black student, one could argue that the person did so as a means of racial harassment. This reasoning, however, hasn't been argued in the Supreme Court before, so it's hard to tell if it would be successful in the future.

Additionally, hate speech can violate certain freedom of speech laws like slander (trying to damage someone's reputation with false spoken words) or libel (trying to damage someone's reputation through writing). In some cases, hate speech could also violate rules as technical as copyright violations or non-disclosure agreements depending on how and where those opinions are articulated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What You Need to Know About Hate Speech and Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent protest at UC Berkeley against online troll Milo Yiannapoulos brought up questions concerning how hate speech differs from free speech.

# data[].attributes.body
An overview of free speech on college campuses, both for speakers and students.

Source: "Free Speech vs Hate Speech on College Campuses," Above the Noise - PBS Learning Media

# data[].attributes.headline
Tinker vs Des Moines: The Teens Who Fought For Free Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Tinker vs Des Moines: The Teens Who Fought For Free Speech

# data[].attributes.body
Article that provides the history and outcome of the foundational Supreme Court Case that established student free speech rights, including some current implications of those rights.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court upheld students' First Amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teenager Sues US Government over Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Teenager Sues US Government over Climate Change

# data[].attributes.body
Documentary that follows Xuihtezcatl Martinez and several other teens who used their free speech rights to change laws in Boulder, Colorado and to sue the US government, claiming they have a right to a livable climate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Teenager Suing the US Government over Climate Change

# data[].attributes.body
Provides a quick overview to some of the foundational Supreme Court cases that established student free speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Students from NYRA and SSDP protest the Morse v. Frederick decision outside the Supreme Court. Students protest for the right to free speech outside the Supreme Court.

NYRA believes the right to be free from government censorship applies to everyone regardless of age. However, school administrators have frequently tried to censor student speech in a variety of ways: banning clothing with certain messages, removing articles from school newspapers, preventing students from passing out materials at school, turning off the microphone when students are giving a speech, or punishing students for writing material online. In many of these instances, students have successfully brought their school to court over violation of their First Amendment rights and won.

The right to free speech at school

The most famous case for establishing the idea that young people's First Amendment rights are protected while they are in school was Tinker v. Des Moines (U.S. Supreme Court, 1969). In 1965, students John & Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were threatened with suspension for wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Their case ended up at the U.S. Supreme Court who, in a 7-2 decision, sided with the students and concluded that the schools failed "to show that its action [punishing the students] was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."

The Court also set a precedent for other cases involving student rights by concluding that " it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," and that "in our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are 'persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect." While many courts have followed what became known as "the Tinker Standard" since then, other courts have ruled in ways that chip away at the protections those students fought for.

Controlling What Students Wear

People of any age use clothing as a way to make statements about political or personal beliefs or show an interest in music or sports. It is therefore no surprise that many of the free speech cases in schools revolve around what students are allowed to wear.

Statements made on clothes (or buttons, jewelry, etc.) are considered forms of speech and are mostly protected by the First Amendment. Schools cannot ban a particular shirt, just because they don't agree with the statement or because they feel it may disrupt learning. Despite this, schools have punished students from wearing everything from shirts criticizing the President to supporting rival sports teams. In most of these cases, the school has violated the constitutional rights of students.

However, it is not against the law for schools to make general rules about the type of clothing (no written words, no shorts, uniforms) if they apply to everyone equally. Unfortunately, rules about dress codes and uniforms, because they apply to all students, have been supported by the courts.

School Newspapers and the Hazelwood Standard

Students at the University of Redlands protest cuts to the student newspaper, which they saw as retaliatory for an article criticizing the school. (Photo by Micah Escamilla/Redlands Daily Facts)

If you are writing for your school newspaper, the rules for whether the school can censor your work is largely governed by the court case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988). In this case, students at Hazelwood East High School attempted to publish two articles dealing with teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children in an issue of their school newspaper. However, the principal believed these articles were inappropriate and decided to withhold them from publication. Three students brought the case to court, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. In a 5-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the principal's actions did not violate the students' First Amendment rights because schools are able to set certain standards for student speech that is published and disseminated under their sponsorship. The Court declared that schools have the right to censor speech that is "inconsistent with 'the shared values of a civilized social order,'" and that exercising editorial control over student speech in school newspapers was justified as long as it related to educational concerns. The Court further asserted that schools may censor "publications, theatrical performances, or other expressive activities" that bear on the public image of the school or relate to legitimate educational concerns as long as the activities "are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences."

In this way, the Hazelwood case set different rules for speech that bears the name of the school. The Tinker Standard requires school officials to show that their censorship is based on a reasonable expectation that the content would cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or an invasion of the rights of others. The Hazelwood Standard, on the other hand, only requires that school officials show that they have a valid educational purpose for their censorship and that the censorship is not intended to silence a particular viewpoint that they just disagree with or that isn't popular.

However, in order for a school to censor student work under the guidelines set by Hazelwood, four criteria have to be met:

1. The material must be part of the school curriculum or sponsored by the school. This is usually indicated if the school has lent its name and resources to the publication, if the school created it, if it is supervised by a faculty member, or if it was designed specifically to share information with a student audience.

2. The material cannot be part of a public forum. A public forum is created when school officials have "by policy or practice" allowed students unrestricted use of a publication. This is often indicated where students editors have final authority over the content of the publication.

3. The censorship must have a valid educational purpose. Even where the school has control over a curriculum-based newspaper in a non-public forum, it can only censor material for limited reasons. Reasons can include material that is "ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences;" the inclusion of sensitive topics; and material advocating undesirable behavior or associating the school with a certain position on politically controversial issues. Schools still may not engage in "viewpoint discrimination" by forbidding or punishing only certain disfavored opinions.

4. The state cannot have passed specific "anti-Hazelwood" laws. Some states have adopted "anti-Hazelwood" laws. which means that the school has to prove that the published material would cause a "material and substantial disruption" to the school. As of 2017, states with anti-Hazelwood laws include Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

These guidelines can also be applied to other school-sponsored material such as yearbooks, literary magazines, radio and TV programs, and graduation speeches.

Off-campus speech

Students have been punished for a variety of statements they've made online, ranging from calling out teachers for sexually harassing students or for criticizing their school in other ways. Schools may be concerned about students who have used the internet to intimidate others, but they often take extreme measures to punish students or abused their authority in demanding students to give up their passwords to their social media accounts. The courts are unclear whether the schools can punish students for speech made online, even when that speech is about the school or other students. In some of these cases, the courts have upheld the students' rights to free speech and in others they have sided with the schools, which makes it difficult to determine a definitive rule, but NYRA believes that the school doesn't have the right to censor you.

What You Can Do

You can take the following steps to fight censorship at school:

1. Know the law. The most important part of fighting for your rights is knowing the law. You can use your knowledge of the law to your advantage, whether that is making sure that your article is published or presenting a case for why it is potentially a violation of your rights to be punished for expressing yourself. You can learn about previous cases below.

2. Understand that some speech is not protected. It is important to note that while freedom of speech in the United States is a right protected by the Constitution, there are exceptions that make that right a limited one. These exceptions include: incitement to "imminent lawless action"; false statements of fact; obscenity; fighting words; copyrighted material; and false advertising. It is legal for the government and your school to make rules restricting speech in these categories. Additionally, courts have repeatedly upheld censorship in cases where student speech is sexual in nature, appears to promote drug use or supports activities that may be deemed disruptive or illegal. However, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't fight for something when the law isn't on your side - just be aware that it is that much more difficult.

3. Get it in writing. If your school does try to censor you, ask specifically what the objections are and try to get them to write it down or print it. That way, you'll know exactly why they are censoring you.

4. Try to appeal. If your teacher is complaining, talk to your principal. If it's your principal, talk to the school superintendent. Attend your school board's meeting to let them know your situation. When appealing a decision, make sure you have well-thought out reasons for arguing your case.

5. Get others involved. Talk to fellow students, other faculty, and parents. Their support can have a big influence.

6. Inform the media. Contact your local newspapers and television stations.

7. Get help from national organizations. The Student Press Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union also have a lot of resources on students' rights.

8. Establish student publications as a public forum for student expression. If a policy is not already in existence for your school, push your principal, superintendent, or school board to adopt one protecting the right of student journalists to make their own content decisions. The Student Press Law Center's Model Guidelines for Student Publications, sets reasonable limitations on the material that students can include in their publications.

9. Get Anti-Hazelwood Laws Passed in Your State. You can help prevent Hazelwood by making sure your state has taken the proper precautions to contain it. Explain to your state and local lawmakers the importance of countering Hazelwood's spread, and tell them how it affects you.

10. Start Your Own Paper. Hazelwood restrictions cover official school papers, but schools are unable to censor blogs or papers you publish on your own.

Appendix: A list of free speech cases involving students

As you can see, many students have taken their schools to court over violation of their free speech rights. While many of those cases are won by the students, courts have also denied those rights in specific circumstances. Although differen courts may decide the exact same case differently, glancing through the following list may help to you to determine roughly what kind of activity is protected by the First Amendment. You can use this knowledge to argue against why you or other students should not be punished or to illustrate to your school officials why their policies may actually be violating the law.

Cases found in favor of the student:

Cases found in favor of the school:

1. Boroff v. Van Wert City Board of Education (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2000) A high school was allowed to ban t-shirts depicting Marilyn Manson because the court asserted that the school was right in prohibiting clothing that promoted "values that are so patently contrary to the school's educational mission."

2. Corder v. Lewis Palmer School Dist. No. 08-1293 (10th Cir. May 29, 2009). A high school student gave a speech, different than the one she submitted, that was full of religious references at her commencement ceremony and was made to apologize. The court ruled that valedictory speeches constitute school-sponsored speech and that a school district is entitled to review the content of these speeches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FREE SPEECH IN SCHOOLS - National Youth Rights Association

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We believe the right to free speech applies to everyone regardless of age. We help students fight against censorship in their schools - whether that's over clothing bans, removing articles from school newspapers, preventing students from passing out materials at school or punishing students for writing material online.

# data[].attributes.body
Recent Supreme Court decision on student free speech and social media/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a student cheerleader in a major free-speech case, ruling that the school's disciplinary action against the student for her off-campus social media post violated her First Amendment rights.

In a 8-1 decision, the justices ruled in favor of Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania. In 2017, Levy, who was a freshman at the time, didn't make the varsity cheerleading team and during the weekend, posted a profanity-laced message to the social media platform Snapchat from a convenience store. She was later reprimanded and suspended from the junior varsity team for the comments.

"We must decide whether the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit correctly held that the school's decision violated the First Amendment. Although we do not agree with the reasoning of the Third Circuit panel's majority, we do agree with its conclusion that the school's disciplinary action violated the First Amendment," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in the case.

The Week in Cartoons: June 21-25

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia had pointed to a 1969 Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which argued that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," though it did grant protections for schools to discipline students for "substantial disruption."

But the high court's ruling was more specific to Levy's situation and left open to interpretation other student off-campus speech and how schools might regulate it, especially as students engage significantly more in online communication.

"We do not now set forth a broad, highly general First Amendment rule stating just what counts as 'off campus' speech and whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school's special need to prevent, e.g., substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up a school community," Breyer wrote.

"We leave for future cases to decide where, when, and how these features mean the speaker's off-campus location will make the critical difference," he added. "This case can, however, provide one example."

The court's majority argued that the leeway given to schools to regulate student speech doesn't always "disappear when a school regulates speech that take place off campus," noting that speech regulation could be needed in scenarios concerning serious bullying or harassment, threats to teachers or students, failure to comply with rules on curriculum or school activities and "breaches of school security devices."

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and teachers unions applauded Wednesday's decision, arguing that it offers students, particularly those of color, protections to their speech but also against bullying from their peers. But President Joe Biden's administration had sided with the school district.

"We all want our students - Black and white, Native and newcomer, Hispanic and Asian alike - to attend safe public schools that are free of harassment and bullying. We also believe that students, just like educators, have a right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment," National Education Association president Becky Pringle said in a statement. "The Supreme Court's decision in Mahanoy strikes the right balance."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Sides With Cheerleader in First Amendment Social Media Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with a student cheerleader in a major free-speech case, ruling that the school's disciplinary action against the student for her off-campus social media post violated her First Amendment rights. In a 8-1 decision, the justices ruled in favor of Brandi Levy, a former cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School in Pennsylvania.

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship. Social media platforms are private companies and can censor what people post on their websites as they see fit. But given their growing role in public discourse, it's important to ask ourselves - what exactly are their censorship policies? How do they compare to each other, and to the First Amendment's protections? Here's a deeper dive into free speech on social media.

Free speech on social media: What can and can't you say?
Mouseover or tap each social media icon for more information.

Hate

Hate speech is speech that offends or attacks people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, disease, or other traits.

Obscenity

Obscenity is famously hard to define, but in general refers to content that strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time.

Misinformation

Misinformation is false or inaccurate information. Examples of misinformation include false rumors, insults and pranks, while examples of more deliberate disinformation include malicious content such as hoaxes, spearphishing and propaganda. Also referred to as fake news.

Harassment

Harassment refers to unwanted behavior that makes someone feel degraded, humiliated or offended. We do not define it to include true threats of violence, which are banned by all of the platforms below and are not protected by the First Amendment.

Legend

Related Resources
Lata Nott is a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum. Follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Speech on Social Media: The Complete Guide - Freedom Forum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free speech on social media is often misunderstood. Here's what you can, and can't, say on each of the primary platforms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Objection to sexual, LGBTQ content propels spike in book challenges

# data[].attributes.headline
Objections to LGBTQ content propels spike in book challenges

# data[].attributes.subject
Objections to LGBTQ content propels spike in book challenges

# data[].attributes.body
Contains several numbers and statistics presented in a visual appealing format

Washington Post Log-In

Username: monica.escobar@bmhs.org

PW: Acdsacds1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An analysis of book challenges from across the nation shows the majority were filed by just 11 people
Updated June 9, 2023 at 6:15 p.m. EDT |Published May 23, 2023 at 6:00 a.m. EDT
(Chantal Jahchan for The Washington Post; Getty Images)
Listen
14 min
Share Comment Add to your saved stories Save
Books about LGBTQ people are fast becoming the main target of a historic wave of school book challenges - and a large percentage of the complaints come from a minuscule number of hyperactive adults, a first-of-its-kind Washington Post analysis found.

A stated wish to shield children from sexual content is the main factor animating attempts to remove LGBTQ books, The Post found. The second most common reason cited for pulling LGBTQ texts was an explicit desire to prevent children from reading about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, nonbinary and queer lives.

The Post requested copies of all book challenges filed in the 2021-2022 school year with the 153 school districts that Tasslyn Magnusson, a researcher employed by the free expression advocacy group PEN America, tracked as receiving formal requests to remove books last school year. In total, officials in more than 100 of those school systems, which are spread across 37 states, provided 1,065 complaints totaling 2,506 pages.
Skip to end of carousel
About this series and soaring book challenges in the U.S.
arrow right
1/3
End of carousel
The Post analyzed the complaints to determine who was challenging the books, what kinds of books drew objections and why. (The Post used 986 of the complaints in the analysis; the others were unusable because they were illegible or from outside the 2021-2022 school year.) Nearly half of filings - 43 percent - targeted titles with LGBTQ characters or themes, while 36 percent targeted titles featuring characters of color or dealing with issues of race and racism. The top reason people challenged books was "sexual" content; 61 percent of challenges referenced this concern.

In nearly 20 percent of the challenges, petitioners wrote that they wanted texts pulled from shelves because the titles depict lesbian, gay, queer, bisexual, homosexual, transgender or nonbinary lives. Many challengers wrote that reading books about LGBTQ people could cause children to alter their sexuality or gender.

"The theme or purpose of this book is to confuse our children and get them to question whether they are a boy or a girl," a North Carolina challenger wrote of " Call Me Max," which centers on a transgender boy.

A Texas challenger wrote that " King and the Dragonflies," which tells the story of a Black 12-year-old in Louisiana grappling with his attraction to men, will give "ideas to children [on how to] discover that they are gay [and] how to persuade others they may be gay as well."

And in Georgia, a challenger wrote of " The Poet X," which features a same-sex couple: "Books like this is where teens get the idea it's ok!"

A small number of people were responsible for most of the book challenges, The Post found. Individuals who filed 10 or more complaints were responsible for two-thirds of all challenges. In some cases, these serial filers relied on a network of volunteers gathered together under the aegis of conservative parents groups such as Moms for Liberty.

The surge in anti-LGBTQ book challenges comes as Republican-dominated state legislatures are proposing and passing a record-breaking wave of laws and policies that restrict LGBTQ civil liberties, especially in the K-12 setting. At the same time, at least a half-dozen states have enacted laws giving parents more power over which books appear in libraries or circumscribing students' access to books. And seven states have adopted laws that threaten school librarians with years of imprisonment and tens of thousands of dollars in fines for giving children "obscene" or "harmful" books.

It is unknown how many of these requests resulted in the books' temporary or permanent removal from school, although a previous Post analysis suggests the majority of challenged books remain on the shelves. Nonetheless, library and free speech advocates warn that the rise in book challenges, especially those targeting LGBTQ texts, will imperil teachers' ability to do their jobs, undermine the mental health of LGBTQ students, and rob children of exposure to lives different from their own.

"These censorship attacks on books have real-life human impacts that are going to resonate for generations," said John Chrastka, co-founder and executive director of the library advocacy group EveryLibrary.

But in interviews, book challengers say they are fighting for children's innocence, sanity and well-being - and, some believe, for their souls.

Advertisement

Cindy Martin, a mother of four in Georgia's Forsyth County schools, challenged three books last school year. In one complaint, lodged against " Check Please! Book 1: #Hockey," a graphic novel about a college hockey team whose protagonist comes out as gay, she demanded that school officials "remove all copies and burn it."

Martin said in an interview that she stands by her call to burn "Check Please!" which she criticized for "using the f-word, and it's in the sexual sense." She said titles available in school libraries promote casual sex and degrade women. She predicted letting children read those books will lead to pregnancy, abortion, sexual harassment, rape and sexually transmitted diseases.

"It has no place in the school system. It really has no place in society," she said. "I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and I feel he has put this passion in me to protect children."

LGBTQ books draw unprecedented attacks

Opposition to LGBTQ books is not a new phenomenon in America. But the current wave is probably unprecedented in scope and scale, according to a Post analysis of data provided by the American Library Association, which has tracked book challenges by calendar year for two decades.

From the 2000s to the early 2010s, LGBTQ books were the targets of between less than 1 and 3 percent of book challenges filed in schools, according to ALA data. That number rose to 16 percent by 2018, 20 percent in 2020 and 45.5 percent in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available.

Jennifer Pippin, a mother and book challenger in Florida's Indian River County and a founding chairman of Moms for Liberty, attributed the concern over LGBTQ books not to homophobia but to the texts' sexually explicit nature.

"In the past 10 to 13 years, the LGBTQ books have gotten very sexually graphic," she said.

Pippin mentioned the frequently challenged " Gender Queer," a memoir about being nonbinary, which depicts oral sex and masturbation.

"If that book was made without the strap-on dildo,"Pippin said, "that book wouldn't be challenged."

The Post's analysis of school book challenges partly supports Pippin's argument: In 62 percent of objections to LGBTQ titles, challengers complained of "sexual" content. But many challengers were also uncomfortable with LGBTQ books for other reasons. In 37 percent of objections against LGBTQ titles, challengers wrote that they believed the books should not remain in libraries specifically because they feature LGBTQ lives or stories.

Cries to remove books from classrooms and library shelves are nothing new. Some of what has shifted are the storylines, characters and authors being silenced. (Video: Allie Caren/The Washington Post, Photo: Illustration: Brian Monroe/The Washington Post)

Book challengers' attitudes in some respects track with the views of American adults, who widely favor limits on some classroom conversations about gender identity, a Post-KFF poll found. Roughly 70 percent of adults believe it is inappropriate for teachers to discuss trans identity in kindergarten through fifth grade, the poll found, while slightly more than 50 percent believe it is also inappropriate in sixth through eighth grade. Meanwhile, a third of trans adults said in the Post-KFF poll that they began to understand their gender identity when they were 10 or younger, and another third realized it between the ages of 11 and 17.

The developments across the nation contain a message, said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and chief executive of the LGBTQ rights group GLAAD: "Being gay or transgender is somehow something to avoid."

One woman who challenged two LGBTQ books in Georgia's Cherokee County School District - and who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing her job - said she did not object to the texts because she believes homosexuality "is a bad thing." But, she said, it is dangerous to allow students unfettered access to such titles.

"You can't just put it out there as if it's okay for everybody," she said, "because if people think it's okay, then what are they going to do?"

The Georgia woman's fears were repeated across dozens of complaints. Eight percent of the challenges lodged against LGBTQ books said they would "groom" children, priming them to adopt an LGBTQ identity and/or to become sexually deviant.

Advertisement

There is little research into the effects of LGBTQ literature on children, partly because books about LGBTQ people have only recently become widely available, said Amy Egbert, a University of Connecticut assistant professor who studies youth mental health.

But "we do have a lot of data about other topics that doesn't lead us to think that reading a book would make a child suddenly become gay," she said.

Egbert pointed to a 2014 study that found discussing suicide with adults and adolescents did not increase suicidal ideation ( several studies have since concluded that asking screening questions about suicide is one of the best ways to protect against death by suicide). Egbert also referenced a 1996 study of lesbian families, in which children grew up constantly exposed to same-sex marriages, that found a large majority of the children nonetheless identified as heterosexual.

And, she said, there is a clear risk to removing LGBTQ books.

"Any time a certain identity is stigmatized, that tends to lead to more discrimination, more bullying, increased mental health challenges," Egbert said. "Everything we know suggests this is very harmful to LGBTQ kids."

The power of serial book challengers

The majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people.

Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers - but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings.

One of them, Michelle Teague in North Carolina's Catawba County schools, submitted 24 challenges against books in her district's library last year, targeting titles from Vladimir Nabokov's " Lolita" to Khaled Hosseini's " The Kite Runner" to Toni Morrison's " The Bluest Eye." She found the books through research online, she said, then checked them out from her public library and read each one cover to cover.

"I did spend some time doing it," she said. "It was involved."

Teague, 55, had a granddaughter in the district at the time. She said she didn't mind pouring hours into inspecting and challenging books because she is determined to prevent children from reading about adult subjects such as rape, sex and violence.

In other school districts, serial book challengers had assistance from a well-organized group of volunteers - such as Pippin, the Moms for Liberty chairman in Florida.

Pippin recalls seeing excerpts posted on Facebook in 2021 from " All Boys Aren't Blue," a memoir about growing up queer and Black, featuring what she called a "graphic anal rape" scene.

She immediately emailed the superintendent and the full school board asking how to check whether Indian River County schools had the book in its libraries. A board member provided the link to an online catalog, she said.

"And we did have it in one of our high schools here," Pippin said. "And that's what got us started looking into the library."

Advertisement

Within weeks, her shock and outrage had spread to a group of 20 mothers, fathers and grandparents, the inaugural members of a Moms for Liberty book-challenge subcommittee. These volunteers began spending five to 10 hours per week hunting for problematic books in the school's library catalog, typing in keywords such as "incest," "rape" and "pedophilia." They also identified targets by looking up troublesome books on Amazon.com and seeing what other, similar titles the website's shopping algorithm suggested.

Every member brought his or her findings to Pippin - and every challenge went out under Pippin's name. This strategy, she said, protects other members from public exposure, professional retaliation and harassment.

Last school year, Indian River County schools received 68 book challenges bearing Pippin's name. So far this school year, the tally is up to 251 pending challenges, she said.

Pippin does read books and file some challenges personally, she said, snatching time while her children are doing their homework. "While they're reading books for school, I'll pop open a book for school," she said.

Other Moms for Liberty chapters are taking notice of Pippin's system for churning out challenges.

"We have a lot of districts across the country where they are just having one or two people file," she said, "but there are many, many people doing the legwork."

Challengers argue books are illegal

The Post found that a significant portion of book challengers are turning to state laws as they argue for removing texts from school libraries.

Sixteen percent of all objections claimed that school books violated either state obscenity laws or legislation passed in the past three years restricting education on race, racism, sexuality and gender identity. Calling books "illegal" was the ninth most common reason employed by book challengers.

This tactic was especially popular in Florida and Texas: Of the 153 complaints contending books were illegal, 56 percent were brought in Florida and 18 percent in Texas.

Advertisement

In 2022, Florida passed a law mandating that school books be age-appropriate, free from pornography and "suited to student needs." In late 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) directed state agencies to develop statewide standards to "prevent the presence of pornography and other obscene content" in schools - leading the Texas Education Agency to issue guidelines giving parents more power over book selection.

Overall, Florida and Texas also saw far more book challenges than most other states included in The Post's analysis. Texas school districts received 32 percent of all challenges in the database, and Florida's drew 17 percent. The next closest state was Missouri with 11 percent, followed by Pennsylvania with 5 percent.

The Post also analyzed the identities of people challenging books, as well as how they became aware of the titles. The data is limited because not every book challenge form asked about these issues, and sometimes challengers neglected to answer if asked.

Of the 499 challengers who gave an identification, 21 percent said they were parents, 15 percent said they were filing on behalf of a group of concerned parents and/or residents, and 14 percent said they were filing on behalf of a Moms for Liberty chapter. Just eight challenges were brought by self-identified school staffers, and two by self-identified students.

Of the 198 challengers who specified where they heard about the book they were targeting, 51 percent reported learning of the title through news reports. Thirty percent said they learned of the title from other parents. Eleven percent said their school district provided the book in the classroom or as suggested reading, and 8 percent reported that their child brought the book home of their own volition.

Banned books and challenges

HAND CURATED

View 3 more stories Graphics by Shelly Tan. Story editing by Adam B. Kushner. Copy editing by Phil Lueck. Design by Lucy Naland. Graphics editing by Reuben Fischer-Baum. Nate Jones contributed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Objection to sexual, LGBTQ content propels spike in book challenges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A analysis of objections from across the nation shows the majority were filed by just 11 people

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Written by Susan L. Webb, last updated on August 8, 2023

Book banning, a form of censorship, occurs when private individuals, government officials, or organizations remove books from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstore shelves because they object to their content, ideas, or themes. Those advocating a ban complain typically that the book in question contains graphic violence, expresses disrespect for parents and family, is sexually explicit, exalts evil, lacks literary merit, is unsuitable for a particular age group, or includes offensive language.

Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States

Book banning is the most widespread form of censorship in the United States, with children's literature being the primary target. Advocates for banning a book or certain books fear that children will be swayed by its contents, which they regard as potentially dangerous. They commonly fear that these publications will present ideas, raise questions, and incite critical inquiry among children that parents, political groups, or religious organizations are not ready to address or that they find inappropriate.

Most challenges and bans prior to the 1970s focused primarily on obscenity and explicit sexuality. Common targets included D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterly's Lover and James Joyce's . In the late 1970s, attacks were launched on ideologies expressed in books.

In September 1990, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression declared the First Amendment to be "in perilous condition across the nation" based on the results of a comprehensive survey on free expression. Even literary classics, including Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, were targeted. Often, the complaints arose from individual parents or school board members. At other times, however, the pressure to censor came from such public interest groups as the Moral Majority.

Censorship - the suppression of ideas and information - can occur at any stage or level of publication, distribution, or institutional control. Some pressure groups claim that the public funding of most schools and libraries makes community censorship of their holdings legitimate.

To counter charges of censorship, opponents of publications sometimes use the tactic of restricting access rather than calling for the physical removal of books. Opponents of bans argue that by restricting information and discouraging freedom of thought, censors undermine one of the primary functions of education: teaching students how to think for themselves. Such actions, assert free speech proponents, endanger tolerance, free expression, and democracy.

Community standards may be taken into account when deciding if materials are subject to censor

Although censorship violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, some limitations are constitutionally permissible. The courts have told public officials at all levels that they may take community standards into account when deciding whether materials are obscene or pornographic and thus subject to censor.

They cannot, however, censor publications by generally accepted authors - such as Mark Twain, for example, J. K. Rowling, R. L. Stine, Judy Blume, or Robert Cormier - in order to placate a small segment of the community. Cormier's Chocolate War was one of the American Library Association's Top 10 Banned Books for 2005 and 2006.

Opponents of book banning emphasize the First Amendment rights of students

Those who oppose book banning emphasize that the First Amendment protects students' rights to receive and express ideas. The Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982) ruled 5-4 that public schools can bar books that are "pervasively vulgar" or not right for the curriculum, but they cannot remove books "simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books." The Court's decision was, however, narrow, applying only to the removal of books from school library shelves.

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom documents censorship incidents around the country and suggests strategies for dealing with them. Each September, the American Library Association, the American Booksellers Association, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the Association of American Publishers, and the National Association of College Stores sponsor Banned Books Week - Celebrating the Freedom to Read.

Designed to "emphasize that imposing information restraints on a free people is far more dangerous than any ideas that may be expressed in that information," the week highlights banned works, encourages citizens to explore new ideas, and provides a variety of materials to promote free speech events.

The American Library Association publishes the bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, which provides information on censorship, as well as an annual annotated list of books and other materials that have been censored.
This article was originally published in 2009. Susan Webb is an Adjunct Librarian at Southeastern Oklahoma State University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Book banning, the most widespread form of censorship, occurs when books are pulled from libraries, school reading lists, or bookstores because someone objects to their content.

# data[].attributes.headline
Who decides what is acceptable speech on social media platforms?

# data[].attributes.subject
Who decides what is acceptable speech on social media platforms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are questions once again about the future of Twitter and what it should and should not allow online. Specifically, how far should the company go when it comes to permitting free speech? What should be taken down when it comes to misinformation? And does the company adequately guard against hatemongering speech? Charlie Warzel joined William Brangham to discuss.

Judy Woodruff:
There are questions once again about the future of the social media platform Twitter and what it should and should not allow online.

Specifically, how far should the company go when it comes to permitting free speech? What should be taken down when it comes - becomes misinformation? And does the company adequately guard against hatemongering speech?

William Brangham explores some of those questions.

William Brangham:
Judy, Elon Musk's pending ownership of Twitter has been driving a lot of these questions recently.

Musk has said he wants to overturn some of Twitter's moderation policies and allow some suspended users, like former President Trump, to return to the platform. But what is acceptable and what isn't? And who gets to decide?

For example, over the weekend, Ye, the artist formerly known as Kanye West, tweeted a now-deleted antisemitic comment. His Twitter account was locked for violating Twitter's policies. So, will these kinds of bans and blocks continue under new leadership?

For more on all of this, I'm joined by Charlie Warzel. He's the Atlantic newsletter called Galaxy Brain, where he writes about technology, media and politics.

Charlie, it's great to have you back on the "NewsHour."

What do you make of this Kanye West episode? I mean, isn't that a pretty clear-cut case of hateful rhetoric, or does it, in your mind, underscore some of the larger issues here?

Charlie Warzel, The Atlantic:
Well, I think it's a great example of some of the policies that Twitter has put into place since around 2017 around content moderation around its own rules and code of conduct and terms of use.

And this is - this is Twitter enforcing it rather quickly. I think there is a large consensus that he overstepped the boundaries of what Twitter deems as acceptable speech, and they took action.

But I think, in this broader context, you're looking at the difficulty and the spotlight of content moderation on big platforms like Twitter, big social networks. I mean, this is - you're not just going to have trolls harassing people. You're going to have these huge power users who are in the middle of our public and cultural spotlight trying to either press the boundaries or saying patently unacceptable things, and there's going to be all this pressure.

So it sort of speaks to the way that these content moderation conversations aren't academic. They're real. They're happening all the time. And the stakes are high.

William Brangham:
I mean, a lot of the critics of the social media companies, Twitter included, argue, one, that conservatives are discriminated against, and that, two, the policies are policed in a somewhat willy-nilly fashion.

I mean, for example, Elon - I mean, Kanye West gets booted for antisemitism, but the Iranian government's Twitter account, which regularly spouts antisemitism, is alive and well.

I mean, is there a good-faith argument to be made that these policies are either, A, discriminatory or, B, not really working currently?

Charlie Warzel:
Well, I think they're always very difficult to enforce, right? The hardest part about content moderation is moderating at scale, right? And there's always going to be lots of pressures from outside organizations.

And content moderation is - even though we don't like to talk about it this way, it is frequently - does have ideological components to it. And that's what makes it difficult, right? It is part of this political conversation.

I do want to say, though, to push back a little, there's this idea that it is - content moderation has harmed conservatives or is unfairly biased towards conservatives. I want to be very clear that a lot of the work looking into this and looking into the enforcement also shows that conservative politicians and shock jocks and potential candidates are pushing the boundaries a lot more with what is acceptable speech.

They're the ones who are kind of trying to draw big tech companies into this, because, in all honesty, a lot of times, getting their content moderated by a big tech company is almost the goal, because then they say they have been censored. It's very good for their sort of culture war. Hence...

William Brangham:
Right. It's that I'm going to work the refs as much as I possibly can.

I mean, let's say that Musk does take over Twitter and does loosen some of the reins. You touched on this earlier, but do you think a more loose and open Twitter is a net positive, a net negative for our body politic?

Charlie Warzel:
Well, I want to be clear that what we have seen so far from Elon Musk is an incredibly shallow idea of what content moderation is, and really just the challenge of it, right?

When he - back last April, when he was sort of floating this idea, he spoke with a couple of people. He gave - he spoke at TED Talks in Vancouver, and he was floating these ideas that had either already been tried by Twitter or ideas that people who have tried them have realized patently don't work.

He seems to be sort of coming at this issue the way that a lot of the tech platform founders came at it, say, back in 2004, 2005, 2006, this really permissive idea of speech that didn't really take into account the fact that you're going to be dealing with political entities. You might be dealing with terroristic entities. You might be dealing with inauthentic bot campaigns. There's just so much to this.

And he's sort of coming at it sort of wide-eyed and very confidently saying, I have had a lot of success in one realm of the tech industry, and surely it will translate into this realm.

And I don't think that's true.

William Brangham:
Are there good examples, when you look out there on the landscape of social media platforms, that you think do a good job of both keeping a healthy debate going, while keeping the hateful, awful stuff at bay?

Charlie Warzel:
I think Reddit is a platform that initially really struggled with their sense of moderation, but has found a good middle ground, right?

They have community moderators who sort of keep their communities in check and set their own standards, and then Reddit will come in if things get out of hand or if a community's hateful rhetoric spreads to another community. And they have - they have done a lot of work kicking off communities that are toxic.

And I think this is an important point about the Internet, which is that every community, every forum, whether large or small, relies on moderators. They set the standards for discourse there, and they make it a space that people want to be in.

William Brangham:
Charlie Warzel writes the Galaxy Brain newsletter.

Thank you so much for being here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Who decides what is acceptable speech on social media platforms?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are questions once again about the future of Twitter and what it should and should not allow online. Specifically, how far should the company go when it comes to permitting free speech? What should be taken down when it comes to misinformation? And does the company adequately guard against hatemongering speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First Amendment Resources | Statements & Core Documents | Publications & Guidelines

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose, and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.

The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information as a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:

"The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers." Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to receive information is a fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution when it considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that "the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom." Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Public schools and public libraries, as public institutions, have been the setting for legal battles about student access to books, the removal or retention of "offensive" material, regulation of patron behavior, and limitations on public access to the internet. Restrictions and censorship of materials in public institutions are most commonly prompted by public complaints about those materials and implemented by government officials mindful of the importance some of their constituents may place on religious values, moral sensibilities, and the desire to protect children from materials they deem to be offensive or inappropriate. Directly or indirectly, ordinary individuals are the driving force behind the challenges to the freedom to access information and ideas in the library.

The First Amendment prevents public institutions from compromising individuals' First Amendment freedoms by establishing a framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities regarding free expression and the freedom of belief. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise those freedoms, and it advocates respect for the right of others to do the same. Rather than engaging in censorship and repression to advance one's values and beliefs, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis counsels persons living in the United States to resolve their differences in values and belief by resort to "more speech, not enforced silence."

By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech and intellectual freedom also applies to state and local governments. Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment. Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law.

The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.

First Amendment Resources

Clauses of the First Amendment | The National Constitution Center

First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition: Common Interpretations and Matters for Debate | National Constitution Center

First Amendment - Religion and Expression | FindLaw

What is Censorship?

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that some individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. Would-be censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove information they judge inappropriate or dangerous from public access, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone. It is no more complicated than someone saying, "Don't let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it!"
"Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment." - Article 3, Library Bill of Rights
ALA Statements and Policies on Censorship

Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)

Libraries, no matter their size, contain an enormous wealth of viewpoints and are responsible for making those viewpoints available to all. However, libraries do not advocate or endorse the content found in their collections or in resources made accessible through the library. Rating systems appearing in library public access catalogs or resource discovery tools present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles. Q&A on Labeling and Rating Systems
Complete list of Library Bill of Rights Interpretations
Core Documents

Library Bill of Rights (1939)

Adopted by ALA Council, the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries. ( printable pamphlets)

Libraries: An American Value (1999)

Adopted by ALA Council, this brief statement pronounces the distinguished place libraries hold in our society and their core tenets of access to materials and diversity of ideas.

Guidelines

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A (2007)

Social Media Guidelines for Public and Academic Libraries (2018)

These guidelines provide a policy and implementation framework for public and academic libraries engaging in the use of social media.

Publications

Assistance and Consultation

The staff of the Office for Intellectual Freedom is available to answer questions or provide assistance to librarians, trustees, educators, and the public about the First Amendment and censorship. Areas of assistance include policy development, minors' rights, and professional ethics. Inquiries can be directed via email to oif@ala.org or via phone at (312) 280-4226.

Updated October 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
American Library Association has long championed the freedom of the press and the freedom to read. ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom collects resources about the First Amendment, censorship, academic freedom, and freedom of information.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is high school student speech protected on social media?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is high school student speech protected on social media?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Schools Be Able to Discipline Students for What They Say on Social Media? (Published 2021)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The case of a high school cheerleader who was suspended from her team for comments she made on social media is heading to the Supreme Court. Do schools have the right to censor or punish students for speech outside of their grounds?

# data[].attributes.headline
Nationwide effort to ban books challenges freedom of speech (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Nationwide effort to ban books challenges freedom of speech (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yes, I worry that sort of free speech is losing its grounding on both the right and the left. On the left, we see a lot of people, and particularly in a rising generation, who see free speech as kind of a smokescreen for hatred, as just a way of sheltering those who victimize and protecting bigotry, legitimizing bigotry.

They have lost a sense of why it is that free speech protections are so fundamental to the movements that they're trying to wage, whether it's for racial justice or gender justice or climate justice. You need free speech protections in order to go to battle on those issues and be able to put forward your perspective, to challenge authority.

So that's happening on the left. And then, on the right, we see this kind of startling invocation of the means of government, the power of government, legislation, to dictate on the basis of viewpoint what can be in a school curriculum, what even can be taught in colleges and universities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nationwide effort to ban books challenges freedom of speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Advocates are sounding the alarm about a set of measures that they say target teaching and writing related to LGBTQ issues, race and freedom of speech. Around the country, efforts to ban specific books or even whole categories of books are on the rise. Jeffrey Brown has a conversation for our arts and culture series, "CANVAS."

# data[].attributes.headline
Banned in the USA: Censoring Books in Schools

# data[].attributes.subject
Banned in the USA: Censoring Books in Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Most Frequently Banned Authors

The most banned authors include winners of the Nobel Prize in Literature, the National Book Award for Young People's Literature, the Booker Prize, the Newbery Award, the Caldecott Medal, the Eisner Award, the PEN/Faulkner Award for Fiction, the NAACP Image Award, the GLAAD Award for Media Representation, the Stonewall Award, and more.

Hopkins, Ellen - 14 titles - 43 bans - 20 districts

Kobabe, Maia - 1 title - 41 bans - 41 districts

Morrison, Toni - 3 titles - 34 bans - 25 districts

Johnson, George M. - 2 titles - 30 bans - 29 districts

Myracle, Lauren - 11 titles - 30 bans - 16 districts

Pérez, Ashley Hope - 1 title - 23 bans - 23 districts

Thomas, Angie - 2 titles - 19 bans - 17 districts

Silvera, Adam - 9 titles - 18 bans - 13 districts

Reynolds, Jason - 6 titles - 18 bans - 11 districts

Maas, Sarah J. - 8 titles - 18 bans - 10 districts

Levithan, David - 15 titles - 17 bans - 18 districts

Alexie, Sherman - 2 titles - 17 bans - 17 districts

Evison, Jonathan - 1 title - 17 bans - 17 districts

Andrews, Jesse - 2 titles - 17 bans - 16 districts

Faruqi, Saadia - 17 titles - 17 bans - 2 districts

Jules, Jacqueline - 17 titles - 17 bans - 2 districts

Do, Anh - 17 titles - 17 bans - 1 district

Green, John - 3 titles - 16 bans - 15 districts

Atwood, Margaret - 3 titles - 15 bans - 11 districts

Hutchinson, Shaun David - 6 titles - 15 bans - 7 districts

Albertalli, Becky - 7 titles - 14 bans - 11 districts

Miedoso, Andrés - 14 titles - 14 bans - 1 district

Gino, Alex - 2 titles - 13 bans - 11 districts

Woodson, Jacqueline - 11 titles - 13 bans - 6 districts

Asher, Jay - 1 title - 12 bans - 12 districts

Hosseini, Khaled - 1 title - 12 bans - 12 districts

Dawson, Juno - 2 titles - 12 bans - 11 districts

Tamaki, Mariko - 2 titles - 12 bans - 11 districts

Picoult, Jodi - 3 titles - 12 bans - 10 districts

Glines, Abbi - 9 titles - 12 bans - 5 districts

Peters, Julie Anne - 8 titles - 12 bans - 4 districts

Cast, Kristen - 12 titles - 12 bans - 1 district

Cast, P. C. - 12 titles - 12 bans - 1 district

Kuklin, Susan - 1 title - 11 bans - 11 districts

Telgemeier, Raina - 1 title - 11 bans - 11 districts

Jennings, Jazz - 2 titles - 11 bans - 10 districts

Stone, Nic - 3 titles - 11 bans - 10 districts

Lockhart, E. - 3 titles - 11 bans - 8 districts

Brown, Monica - 10 titles - 11 bans - 2 districts

Kendi, Ibram X. - 7 titles - 10 bans - 12 districts

Anderson, Laurie Halse - 3 titles - 10 bans - 10 districts

Curato, Mike - 1 title - 10 bans - 10 districts

Rosen, L. C. - 1 title - 10 bans - 10 districts

Clare, Cassandra - 5 titles - 10 bans - 8 districts

Arnold, Elana K. - 7 titles - 10 bans - 5 districts

Konigsberg, Bill - 5 titles - 10 bans - 5 districts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Ban Books - PEN America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
PEN America's report on school book bans offers the most comprehensive look at banned books in the 2021-22 school year, with counting more than 2,500 bans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The History of Banned Books - PBS Learning Media

# data[].attributes.body
An overview of book banning today and in history.

Source: "The History of Banned Books," Above the Noise - PBS Learning Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fight For Your Right: The Battle Over Music Censorship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A question of boundaries is the heart of music censorship, but artists have always pushed back, fighting to express themselves.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Putting Rap Lyrics on Trial is a Violation of Free Speech | News & Commentary | American Civil Liberties Union

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The state of Tennessee is violating a rapper’s First Amendment rights by trying to use his lyrics as evidence at trial.

# data[].attributes.headline
Student Activists Overturn Book Bans (Video)

# data[].attributes.subject
Student Activists Overturn Book Bans (Video)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student activists overturn book ban in Pennsylvania school district

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First Amendment challenges to music have focused on claims that the lyrics are obscene, that they incite violence, or that they are harmful to minors.

# data[].attributes.body
Timeline includes hyperlinks to articles which provide more in-depth coverage of each event cited. In some cases, videos to the controversial song, speech, or performance are included.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Music Censorship In America - National Coalition Against Censorship

# data[].attributes.headline
Parental Advisory Warning Labels on Music

# data[].attributes.subject
Parental Advisory Warning Labels on Music

# data[].attributes.body
Includes both the history of and how advisory and ratings for music work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's time once again to answer your questions about the music industry. This week's question comes from James Cross, who identifies himself as "Loud Rock Director" at WGDR-FM, a community radio station in Plainfield, Vermont:
"Exactly how much profanity merits a 'Parental Advisory' label on albums or 'Explicit' on songs? Who sets those rules and have they changed recently?"
Then he goes on to answer his own question:
"Just wanted to let you know, there is no rule on this. It is completely voluntary to put the PA sticker on a record. Maybe that's one of the ones you already knew though, haha. Hope I helped!"
He's right. The record labeling system grew out of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) movie rating system, which was launched in 1968. But there are significant differences between that effort and record labeling. For one, movie rating is de facto mandatory -- a filmmaker or distributor who releases a film that has not been submitted for a rating risks the consequences: many theater chains will not show un-rated movies. Films are rated by a panel of anonymous California parents.

Music is rated by the artists who make it and their labels. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) calls it the "Parental Advisory Label Program" -- that's PAL for short. From the RIAA website:

"Individual record companies and artists decide which of their releases should receive a 'PAL Notice' indicating that the release contains explicit content."

But there's no specific definition of "explicit." The main criteria seem to be: strong language or depictions of violence, sex, or substance abuse.

The RIAA site then offers this caveat:

"A determination that a sound recording contains PAL Content is not a statement as to whether the sound recording is or is not suitable for particular listeners. Nor is the absence of any notification that a sound recording contains PAL Content a statement that the sound recording is completely devoid of all references to strong language or depictions of violence, sex, or substance abuse."

In other words, they tell you, or they don't.

This kind of self-regulation usually grows out of the threat of potentially more restrictive government regulation (a popular topic these days). That was true when the MPAA launched its movie ratings system and it's certainly true for music labeling.

The record industry first recognized a threat when the Parents Music Resource Center launched in April of 1985. The non-profit foundation got off the ground with $5000 from a musician -- Beach Boy Mike Love. The founders were prominent Washington women including Mary (Tipper) Gore (then wife of Senator Al Gore).

"The PAL program is intended to balance the rights and interests of artists and consumers," says RIAA President Cary Sherman. "Artists have a first amendment right to express themselves, and consumers have a right to hear what those artists say. Consumers also should be warned when they might find some of the content objectionable. By asking the artist and the label to make that determination, we avoid any appearance of censorship by a 'board' or some music nanny. Instead, it's the artist and label who are advising listeners that they should be aware that some of the content may be objectionable. No artist wants to fool a consumer into buying an album she might find objectionable.

We've always believed that general guidance is the most appropriate standard. We shouldn't be classifying songs as "explicit" or not based on some application of arbitrary rules. I was just listening the other night to a James Taylor song that used the lyric 'my f***d-up family.' Does that make the song, indeed the entire album, explicit? Bright-line tests just don't work well in this situation."
The RIAA's list of recommendations:
The PMRC compiled a list of 15 songs it deemed objectionable. Topping the list was Prince's "Darling Nikki," for its reference to masturbation. The story goes that Tipper Gore bought Purple Rain (the album containing "Darling Nikki") for her young daughter, who promptly pointed out the naughty bits.

The Washington wives used their connections (PMRC's founders included wives of 10 Senators, 6 Representatives, and a Cabinet Secretary) to leverage their cause. And they had some leverage -- it seems there was a bill that the music industry very much wanted to get through Congress. H.R. 2911 proposed a tax on tape recorders and blank cassettes as a way of collecting royalties (most of which would go to the labels) to offset the claimed losses that would result from home taping.

Just five months after the PMRC launched, the RIAA announced that record labels would put advisories on albums. But the PMRC rejected the RIAA's olive branch, saying the industry proposal did not go far enough. The PMRC wanted all song lyrics printed on album covers; albums with explicit covers kept behind record store counters; and a requirement that labels reassess contracts with musicians who engaged in violent or sexually explicit behavior in concert.

The PMRC also proposed a rating system similar to the MPAA's:

X for "profane or sexually explicit" lyrics
V for violence
D/A for drug and alcohol references
O for "occult" content

The RIAA rejected these demands and suggested a label reading, "Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics."

Cary Sherman, the current President of the RIAA, was a lawyer at Arnold & Porter at the time.

"First, no "board" can determine what is the appropriate interpretation of a song and therefore how it should be rated," Sherman writes in an email. "It's up to the listener to decide the meaning of a song. Second, it's simply impractical to rate as many songs as are released in a given year. In 2009, there were 793 movies rated. That same year, there were over 97,000 albums, or over 1.2 million songs, released."

Nevertheless, the PMRC pushed for a panel of industry and consumer representatives -- similar to the MPAA ratings board -- to develop specific guidelines.

"The original proposal for a full blown ratings system was opposed by Frank Zappa and by a group I organized of managers, agents, PR people, artists and some label execs called The Musical Majority (a reference to the Moral Majority founded by televangelist Jerry Falwell), which was created in association with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)," says Danny Goldberg, who was then head of Gold Mountain Records.

"We felt that words did not lend themselves to a movie type rating system," Goldberg continues, "because different people would interpret what was 'violent,' etc., differently -- not to mention humor, irony, etc."

"I remember the PMRC complaining about the song 'Under the Blade' by Twisted Sister which they claimed was about rape," says Cary Sherman. "But the lead singer for the group, Dee Snider, testified that the PMRC was projecting its violent fantasies into his music, which was actually about the fear that a patient experiences on the operating table before surgery, and that the song was inspired by surgery that the band's drummer had to undergo."

Snider testified at a 5-hour hearing held by the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on September 19, 1985. The hearing room was filled with TV cameras (all of the major networks were there). By most accounts, the most damaging testimony came from John Denver -- in support of freedom of expression. But much of the coverage went to Frank Zappa (the event was marked last month by the unveiling of a statue in his honor in his hometown, Baltimore) because his testimony was both, well, Zappaesque and cogent.

His full statement is part of the Congressional Record. Here's a choice bit:

"The PMRC promotes their program as a harmless type of consumer information service, providing 'guidelines' which will assist baffled parents in the determination of the 'suitability' of records listened to by 'very young children.' The methods they propose have several unfortunate side effects, not the least of which is the reduction of all American music, recorded and live, to the intellectual level of a Saturday morning cartoon show."

Less than two months after the Congressional hearing, the adversaries announced a compromise: albums could either bear the label "Explicit Lyrics - Parental Advisory" or, in lieu of that, have all of their lyrics printed on the back cover.

Several chains announced they would not carry stickered albums. Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club and Walmart.com (collectively "Wal-Mart") still operate under a policy that disallows recordings with the Parental Advisory Label.

"Overall, I don't think labels adversely effected sales," says Danny Goldberg, who now heads Gold Village Entertainment, an artist management company. "Since kids -- even before the Internet -- were able to get what they wanted. It ended up being a way for certain retailers like Wal-Mart to brand themselves as 'family friendly' -- at least to families who didn't like profanity on records."

The drama over record labeling moved from the national stage to statehouses. By 1990, nineteen states had considered some form of labeling legislation.

That same year the record companies announced a revised label: "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics." Unlike the previous labels, it was to be a standard size; black and white; and always located on the bottom right-hand corner of a physical release.

The debate dragged on and Congress held more hearings in 1994. The result was a slightly revised label -- the one still in use 16 years later: "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content." The Senate followed with more hearings -- on violence in music -- in 1997 and 1998. The RIAA revised the guidelines for its members.

Today the PAL logo is usually embedded in the digital artwork for albums purchased online, says Cary Sherman.

"Each individual track that has potentially objectionable content is labeled 'explicit,' which stays with the track even after point of purchase. If there is one track that is labeled 'explicit,' the entire album must have a PAL logo, even if not all of the tracks on the album are labeled as such," Sherman says.

Today, "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content," is a fact of music-buying life. So it's perhaps hard to imagine what a big deal this fight was. The story was covered by the international media. Countless musicians, from Metallica to Sonic Youth to the Ramones to Ice-T recorded songs or produced album art criticizing the Parents Music Resource Center.

As for the PMRC, it's gone the way of record store chains.

Got a music industry mystery you want us to unravel? Send your questions to therecord@npr.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You Ask, We Answer: 'Parental Advisory' Labels -- The Criteria And The History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Parental Advisory" label -- how it got there and what counts as "explicit content."

# data[].attributes.headline
Free Speech vs Censorship: Explicit Lyrics and Trigger Warnings (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Free Speech vs Censorship: Explicit Lyrics and Trigger Warnings (VIDEO)

# data[].attributes.body
A comprehensive history of music censorship starting in the 80s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Speech v Censorship: From Explicit Lyrics to Trigger Warnings | Retro Report

# data[].attributes.headline
What do "Parents' Rights" Mean Legally for Schools, Anyway?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do "Parents' Rights" Mean Legally for Schools, Anyway?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The issue of parents' rights is among the most heated in public education, invoked in political campaigns and debates over everything from COVID policy and curriculum choices to classroom discussions about race, gender, and sexuality.

Most recently, the principle has been a potent rallying cry for conservative activists and politicians, including Virginia's Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin in his winning gubernatorial campaign. But the concept is tangled in more than a century of legal wrangling, court precedents, federal and state statutes, and rhetoric over what it actually means, especially in education.

"People who invoke the term 'parental rights' have different things in mind and different aspirations," said Neal McCluskey, the director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington. "My general impression when I see people invoking 'parental rights,' it's been connected to a general idea that parents have been cut out of decisions made by schools."

Jeffrey Shulman, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law Center and the author of several law journal articles on parental rights, said he agrees the term "is thrown about loosely" and could refer to rights under the U.S. Constitution, under federal statutes, under state constitutions or state statutes, or even school board regulations.

"Generally speaking, when parents use the term in the heat of battle, they are pretty much calling upon some amorphous, free-floating right," Shulman said.

The arguments advanced by some conservative parents today reflect a longstanding and deep-seated fear, he said, "that our system of public education indoctrinates children in a left-wing ideological agenda; that public schools alienate children from their families and cultures, thereby undermining parental authority; [and] that, basically, the goal of public education is to enlist children on the wrong side of our current culture wars."

"These arguments should not be dismissed out of hand," Shulman added. "But much of what we're seeing in the news is outright hostility to any form of common education."

Moms for Liberty advocate sees at least some common ground

That's certainly not how some parental-rights advocates on the conservative side view things.

Tiffany Justice, a co-founder of the group Moms for Liberty, which has grown quickly as a major voice for parental rights since being founded last year, is quick to point out that she served on her local school board, in Florida's Indian River County. The mother of four school-aged children worked on such mundane issues as school start times. (She tried to make them later.)

"We support public education," said Justice. "But we have an education system that is failing parents."

Moms for Liberty was formed in early 2021 in Florida and now has nearly 250 chapters in 42 states. The group pushed for parental rights statutes passed in the state in 2021 and 2022.

The 2022 law, called the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act, prohibits classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity in K-3 classrooms, and requires such conversations after 3rd grade to be age-appropriate, which the state board of education has yet to define. The measure has been derided by opponents as the "Don't Say Gay" law and has been challenged in court.

The measure, which built on a 2021 state law called the Florida Parents' Bill of Rights, also requires that parents be notified about health-care services offered at the child's school, with the right to decline any service offered. And the law requires parental approval for questionnaires or health screenings given to K-3 students.

Florida's recent laws address "the audacity of the teachers and some bureaucrats to think they know better" than parents what is best for students, Justice said.

Justice now travels the country speaking in favor of similar legislation. Some 26 states are considering legislation this year that would expand parental rights in education, according to FutureEd, a think tank at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy.

Justice pushed back at the idea that her group is responsible for sowing division in public schools.

"I think we have much more in common with most parents than people think," she said.

Conservatives would bolster Supreme Court precedents with a constitutional amendment

Conservative lawmakers have proposed parents-rights amendments to the U.S. Constitution, so far with little success, for years. The most recent one introduced by Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., would establish that "the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right." The amendment further says the parental right to direct a child's education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and "the right to make reasonable choices within public school's for one's child."

Similar measures have been introduced in seven previous sessions of Congress. Coming so late in the current session, Lesko's resolution is unlikely to be adopted before a new Congress begins.

"We're kind of setting this up for the next Congress," said William Estrada, the president of the Purcellville, Va.-based Parental Rights Foundation, which grew out of the home schooling movement and makes the amendment a major goal.

Estrada is well aware of roughly a century of U.S. Supreme Court case law supporting parents' right to direct the upbringing of their children. But he and other amendment proponents say such a change to the Constitution is still desirable.

"We're very grateful for the 100-year line of unbroken Supreme Court precedent," he said. "But this is something that is so important that it needs to be in the black and white of the U.S. Constitution."

The line of jurisprudence, while longstanding, has left gray areas Estrada and other advocates are uncomfortable with.

In 1923, in Meyer v. Nebraska, the high court struck down a Nebraska law barring the teaching of a foreign language through 8th grade or any instruction conducted in a foreign language because it interfered with parents' right to "control the education of their own." Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the justices struck down an Oregon law mandating public school attendance and thus precluding enrollment in parochial schools.

In Pierce, the court said the "liberty of parents and guardians" includes the right "to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control." The court said the "child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."

In 2000, in the case of Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court considered parental rights in the context of a Washington state law that gave grandparents and certain others stronger rights to petition family courts for visitation rights with a child. In a fractured opinion, the court limited the application of that statute; a majority of the court nonetheless reaffirmed the right of parents to direct their children's upbringing.

Still, the decision rang alarm bells among some conservatives and parental rights advocates, in part because of a dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia that raised doubts about whether Meyer, Pierce, and another decision, Wisconsin v. Yoder, which in 1972 recognized Amish parents' right to end their children's schooling after 8th grade, deserved respect as precedents.

Scalia suggested parents' right to control their children's upbringing was an "unenumerated right" that was not the province of the judiciary to enforce. As Scalia described it to a law school audience in 2015, such a parental right is "simply not in the Constitution."

Despite the nominal reaffirmance of parental rights in Troxel, Scalia's dissent and his powers of persuasion instilled concern among parental rights advocates that the long line of Supreme Court decisions might face reassessment, Estrada said.

"The good news is that in the 23 years since the decision, those fears have by and large not come to pass," he said.

But Estrada also points to several federal appeals court decisions over the last 15 to 20 years that he views as giving short shrift to parental rights in education as recognized in Meyer and Pierce and stresses that a constitutional amendment would give parents the right to make "reasonable choices" for their children in public schools.

Rulings on parents and school curriculum add to debate

Shulman, of Georgetown Law, said that the Meyer- Pierce formulation of parental rights in education is "really quite limited," and by itself does not mean that courts address alleged violations of such rights with the highest level of constitutional scrutiny, known as strict scrutiny.

The proposed constitutional amendment's casting of parental rights as fundamental would trigger strict scrutiny, he said. That could result in more court rulings for parents over schools.

"Still, there is no parental right to say I don't want my child to be taught this or that," he said, referring to lower court opinions that have ruled against parents seeking such broad influence over a school's curriculum.

Jack Schneider, an associate professor of education at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, recalled co-writing an opinion essay in The Washington Post last year emphasizing that idea that parents may not dictate the curricular choices of public schools that expose children to ideas with which the parents may disapprove.

That idea, coupled with an aggressive headline, cluttered up his inbox for days.

"The amount of hate mail that generated ... holy cow!," he said. "People aren't interested in being told they don't have rights. That is a losing argument."

The current movement in support of parental rights is motivated by various goals, including social, religious, and political ones that are tied up with conservatives' aims of limiting discussions of race, LGBTQ rights, or other controversial topics in schools, he said.

"You are working against decades of rhetoric where nobody is talking about schools as anchors of communities, as places that return all kinds of value to communities and states and the nation," said Schneider.

"It is a lot harder to tell people the reason we pay for public schools with our tax dollars is we all benefit from them and so we ought to all be included in the decisionmaking process," he said.

McCluskey, the libertarian from the Cato Institute, is not sure that the debate around public school issues and parental rights is likely to turn more harmonious anytime soon.

"It used to be people were in school districts that were very homogenous," he said. "So it seems we have a lot more of these conflicts than we used to. But public schools have faced this kind of values-based conflict constantly."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Do 'Parents' Rights' Mean Legally for Schools, Anyway?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Conservatives rely on century-old U.S. Supreme Court precedents but want to bolster parental rights with a constitutional amendment.