By: Kimberly Castillo
Slaughterhouse Five, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, The Kite Runner, Looking for Alaska, and The Color Purple have been among the titles removed from Florida public school libraries’ shelves.[1] In just one school year, book removals nearly doubled from around 300 titles in 2022-2023 to over 700 titles in 2023-2024.[2] Yet, what prompted the removal of these particular books remains unclear to many.
What’s Behind the Wave of Book Removal?
Enacted in 2023, Florida’s House Bill 1069 (“HB 1069”) imposes strict guidelines for materials in school classrooms and libraries.[3] Under these guidelines, educational content cannot discuss sexual conduct, be generally unsuitable for “student needs and their ability to comprehend the material,” or be “inappropriate for the [specific] grade level and age group.” [4] If a book falls under either of these categories, then it can be taken out of circulation. HB 1069 also establishes a private right for parents to challenge materials they feel fall within the prohibited categories. A successful challenge will require district school boards and teachers to remove the materials from their school and classroom libraries.[5]
The pressing issue is that the majority of these publications are authored by people of color and depict LGBTQ+ protagonists and relationships, as well as ideas of race, diversity, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Additionally, books featuring offensive language, anti-war, or religious viewpoints are often restricted. Since the enactment of HB 1069, Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation has been removed for discussing sexual matters and even illustrating Anne walking through a garden with naked Greek and Roman statues.[6] Critics often argue that these depictions are “antisemitic” despite the majority of the passages coming from Anne’s own writing.[7]
Essentially, HB 1069 allows the Republican supermajority to remove materials based on their content to protect children from so-called indoctrination. This resulted in thirty-three districts banning approximately 5,000 books, ranking Florida first for most book removals in the 2023-2024 school year.[8] By removing books based solely on certain content, the law infringes on the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech, expression, and access, particularly the rights of authors, publishers, teachers, and children.
The Government Speech Doctrine Excuse
In response to HB 1069, authors, publishers, and parents questioned its constitutionality, with the government maintaining that the removal was justified under the doctrine of “government speech.”[9] Government speech is determined by various factors, such as funding, history, control, and reception, none of which is more decisive than the other.[10] Under the doctrine, the government can control speech based on content or viewpoint without being subjected to the Free Speech Clause. As a result, schools exercising government speech could control library content without the same restrictions applied to private speech. Without the government speech exception, the government could carry out its duties if each of its statements were held to intense scrutiny as private speech.
Contrary to the claim, this law is not grounded in government speech; if anything, this is a poor excuse to mask the fact that private speech is triggering state action. Under HB 1069, the government lacks control and only carries out the objections and concerns of private individuals. This policy is strategically designed to capitalize on the requirement that school districts must have easily accessible and understandable objection forms on their websites for public use.[11] If an objection form is submitted, schools must remove the book in question from the shelf within five days, and it must remain unavailable until the objection is resolved.[12] Since HB 1069 leaves enforcement to private individuals rather than the government, this form of influence constitutes private speech, not government speech.[13]
Unlike how monuments in public parks are clearly attributed to the city government, it is not evident that the public would reasonably attribute the removal to the government.[14] School libraries are designed to give students access to books on a variety of subjects and viewpoints. As such, individuals would not recognize bans as a means to convey the government’s message.[15] If anything, one would attribute them to concerns raised by parents within our communities.[16] Therefore, this is not a case of government speech, but that of a state carrying out private objections. Because the book bans are largely driven by private individuals, the government speech argument does not survive. However, when the government is the conduit for effectuating private objections, we are left with state action that is subject to First Amendment protections.
All You Need to Know About Pico
In the landmark case Board of Education v. Pico, students sued the school board for removing books from school libraries, arguing that it violated their First Amendment right to access the books.[17] Here, the Supreme Court clarified constitutional limitations that school boards face regarding book removals; it is precisely for this that this case evaluates HB 1069.
It is in our society’s interest that children are taught how to engage in appropriate civil discourse. However, the predicament is that library books are not part of the school curriculum but are optional readings for students.[18] This is not to say that the content of library books does not play a “substantial legitimate role” to school boards, but that the discretion to manage school affairs, which is traditionally left to school boards, must yield to constitutional limits.[19] Specifically, the removal of schoolbooks here cannot be based on the suppression of unwanted ideas.[20] Yet, this is exactly what HB 1069 does, since it permits removals on “sexual conduct” or “prohibited materials.” It is a content-based restriction. Consequently, any part of a book that touches on sexual orientation, gender identity, racial inequality, etc., can be removed from circulation. Unfortunately, this results in a book’s literary and educational value being disregarded for the sake of one specific subject. Another direct result of these restrictions may include authors and publishers refusing to publish works on these issues to avoid them being removed.
Simply put, the bans prevent students from being exposed to other societal perspectives and discourages them from participating in meaningful dialogue. Additionally, as mentioned by the Supreme Court in Pico, the First Amendment is not limited to individual self-expression but also includes the public’s right to access “discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.”[21] The students’ inability to access information prevents them from further developing their critical thinking skills to challenge the information around them. At its core, restricting these titles risks shaping Florida classrooms into spaces where only one dominant narrative exists.
[1] Fla. Dep’t of Educ., 2023-2024 School District Reporting Pursuant to Section 1006.28(2), Florida Statutes, https://www.fldoe.org/file/5574/2324-SDRPS-100628-2.pdf [https://perma.cc/Q6YP-S44C].
[2] Danielle Prieur, Florida’s Education Dept. releases a list of over 700 books removed in K-12 schools, WUSF (Nov. 12, 2024), https://www.wusf.org/education/2024-11-12/florida-department-of-education-releases-list-over-700-banned-books-k-12-schools [https://perma.cc/LU4F-R8EL].
[3] H.B. 1069, 2023 Leg., 125th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2023).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Andrew Lapin, ‘Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation’ and why it’s being banned from schools, explained, Jewish Telegraphic Agency (June 12, 2023), https://www.jta.org/2023/06/12/culture/a-new-version-of-the-holocausts-most-famous-diary-is-being-called-anne-frank-pornography-and-getting-banned-from-schools [https://perma.cc/P7JH-4YW6].
[7] Id.
[8] Book Bans, Pen Am. (last visited Sep. 23, 2025), https://pen.org/book-bans/ [https://perma.cc/Y2QV-7MNZ].
[9] Penguin Random House LLC v. Gibson, No. 6:24-cv-1573-CEM-RMN, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163022, at *24 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2025); see also Pen Am. Ctr., Inc. v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 711 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1331 (N.D. Fla. 2024).
[10] See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009); Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2005).
[11] H.B. 1069, 2023 Leg., 125th Reg. Sess. (Fla. 2023).
[12] Id.
[13] Penguin Random House LLC, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163022, at *28.
[14] See Pleasant Grove City, 555 U.S. at 476 (explaining that the public can attribute the message of selective monuments to the municipality).
[15] See Pen Am. Ctr., Inc., 711 F. Supp. 3d at 1331.
[16] Id.
[17] Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 857-60 (1982).
[18] See id. at 862.
[19] See id. at 863, 869.
[20] See id. at 872.
[21] Id. at 866 (quoting First Nat’l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978)).
