The Politics of Story: Book Bans, Power, and the Fragility of Narrative

Narrative is not neutral. Story itself is a meaning-making system which can inspire, heal, disrupt, or reinforce violence and prejudice. Book banning represents a breakdown in both communication and understanding. Who decides what lines the shelves of local libraries or should be a part of the curriculum? Technically a school library is a place of voluntary learning. What rights should parents have to assert what they believe is appropriate for their children? 

Determining limits of access has often been the domain of librarians and academics. Benign censorship and passivity by these professionals have created the indexing of many of the volumes lining your local library's shelves. But in certain states an individual can walk into a library and demand a book be taken off a shelf based on a personal belief system, just as a public institution choosing to carry a controversial book also asserts an administrative choice, and in the process allows certain political, religious or social values to prevail. Where is the line in this delicate balance? Is balance even a possibility? Suppressing a story is a deliberate and subjective decision, especially when it is made unilaterally. Book bans often target works that present marginalized perspectives which either hope to inform or challenge prevlavent cultural, identity and political structures. 

(Pexel iStock)

Ray Bradbury's dystopian novel "Fahrenheit 451" (1953) explored the practice of book banning in a futuristic society. Book burners were called firemen, and book burning was used as a weapon of control. Although Bradbury's commentary was concerned with the rise of TV and factoids, versus what he saw as a richer and deeper exploration of ideas reached only through books, this seminal novel came to represent information restrictions associated with fascistic societies.

Politically motivated texts aim to proselytize or marginalize people by establishing certain groups or ideas as immoral, or damaging to the societal system. These narratives weaponize language to legitimize inclusion, exclusion, rewrite history, or normalize violence. They assert “truth” while curtailing alternative views, and eliminating actual lived experiences. The process creates conflict between supporters of imaginative commons expansion and opponents who want to limit such growth because it is seen as prejudicial or threatening.

Books have potentially transformative power. Some consider the words of an author discussing an individual's or community's lived experience, whether fact or fiction, to constitute harm or propaganda. Controlling the narrative is often the domain of an editor's or publisher's whim, or the most funded, whether victors, or real, or perceived victims. It is a battle of passions and hopes elevating or suppressing a theme or affilation. Political, religious and identity-based groups are well versed using a strategicallly published book to advance their causes.

The recent Florida case discussed below involved HB 1069, a law that allowed the state, or any member of the community, the right to call for the removal of a book based on a somewhat vague but broad definition of sexual or obsence material. This gave the state or community member broad book banning ability withiout giving school libraries due process to counter it. In this case, t he Middle District Court of Florida decided to overturn HB 1069, granting First Amendment protection to school libraries, affirming the value of professional librarian expertise. The decision cited the “Miller-for-minors” test as a valid basis for the prohibition of truly pornographic material. Other cases remain pending throughout the country

Who should control the narrative? Should individuals cede control of content to the state, other community members, or to librarians? The ongoing challenges seem to do with titles exploring sexual orientation and gender issues, with the deeper question of age appropriateness balanced against access. What may be approporiate for one ten year old may not be for another. Who do you think should make that choice?

Read more about the decision below. Let us know your thoughts. info@narrativemindworks.org

-Lauren Manning

Authors Guild Celebrates Victory Against Florida’s Book Ban Law

First published August 14, 2025 

In a sweeping victory for readers and authors, Judge Carlos Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted our coalition’s motion for summary judgment in Penguin Random House v. Gibson, striking down Florida’s book ban law as unconstitutional.  Quoting from Penguin Random House v. Robbins, where the Authors Guild was also a plaintiff and in which we had another recent victory against overbroad book censorship law in Iowa, this comprehensive, well-reasoned ruling represents a total victory for the coalition of major publishers, beloved authors, students, and parents who challenged the law’s assault on intellectual freedom.

The Case: Challenging Florida’s Overreach

In August 2024, the Authors Guild joined major publishers Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishers, Simon & Schuster, and Sourcebooks, along with acclaimed authors Julia Alvarez, Laurie Halse Anderson, John Green, Jodi Picoult, and Angie Thomas, in challenging HB 1069. The law allows any member of the community (not just parents) to demand the removal of any book in the school district that “describes sexual conduct” or that the person deems “pornographic” without defining what either term means—although, as Judge Mendoza finds, “—given that obscene material as to minors is already prohibited under Florida law, these terms must, therefore, target non-obscene material. The books must be removed within five days of the objection—even if the objections are frivolous—thus keeping books unavailable indefinitely while the objections are reviewed. 

The Florida Department of Education directs school librarians and other educators to “err on the side of caution,” creating an atmosphere of fear that has led to the systematic removal of acclaimed literature from Florida’s school libraries.

The impact of the law was immediate and devastating. As the court documented, when J.H., a junior at an Orange County high school, went to check out Jack Kerouac’s On the Road, “it was nowhere to be found. It was not checked out; it had been removed from the shelves.” R.K., a senior in Volusia County, faced the same disappointment searching for Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. These weren’t isolated incidents—classics and contemporary works alike were swept away not as a result of professional librarian judgment, but because “fragments of their content were prohibited under HB 1069.” Gone were books by our plaintiff authors and other acclaimed works like  The Kite Runner, The Handmaid’s Tale, and Slaughterhouse-Five.

Legal Wins for Free Speech

First Amendment Protection for School Libraries Affirmed
Florida argued that when schools select and remove library books, they are engaged in “government speech”—meaning the government can say whatever it wants without First Amendment restrictions, just as it can choose what message to put on license plates or monuments. Under this theory, schools could remove any book for any reason, including pure viewpoint discrimination, without constitutional oversight.

Judge Mendoza firmly rejected this dangerous argument. First, he pointed out that the state had left it to ordinary citizens to object to books, and the state could hardly claim that as government speech. Moreover, the systematic removal of books “without consideration of their overall value cannot be an expressive activity amounting to government speech.” Instead, the law creates rigid, content-based prohibitions that librarians must “apply blindly,” stripping away the professional discretion that might justify treating book selection as government expression. School districts cannot circumvent the First Amendment simply by claiming their censorship constitutes their own “speech.”

“Sexual Conduct” Ban Struck Down as Unconstitutional
Judge Mendoza ruled that the law’s prohibition on books that “describe sexual conduct” is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment. This provision creates an impermissible “I know it when I see it” standard that fails to consider a book’s overall literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. As Education Media Specialist Christina Hackey testified, the vague language leaves educators uncertain whether books are prohibited for stating characters “spent the night together” or “made love”—forcing librarians to remove materials with no consideration of their overall educational worth.

“Pornographic” Content Narrowly Defined
The court ruled that any prohibition on “pornographic” content must be interpreted as synonymous with Florida’s existing “harmful to minors” standard, which applies the rigorous “Miller-for-minors” test, which adapts the standard the U.S. Supreme Court set out in Miller v. California This ensures that only truly obscene material—not literature with serious value—can be restricted. Hackey’s testimony revealed that despite widespread book removals, she has “never seen pornography or obscene materials in a public school library”—undermining the state’s justification for such a sweeping law.

Professional Librarian Expertise Validated
The decision explicitly recognized the professional judgment of school librarians and rejected the state’s attempt to mandate book removals based on rigid, content-blind criteria. The court noted that the law forces librarians to remove “popular and award-winning books that allow students to understand and process consensual or abusive sexual experiences that are common among both young and maturing teens.”

As Hackey explained, these restrictions “restrict [her] capacity to respond to the educational needs of [her] students, especially students who have experienced sex or sexual abuse”—precisely when literature could provide understanding and healing.

Implications for Authors

“This victory affirms what we’ve always known—that literature has the power to expand worlds, foster empathy, and help young people understand themselves and their experiences,” said Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild. “Book bans don’t just censor words on a page; they silence authors’ lived experiences and deny students access to the stories that help them navigate an increasingly complex world.”

Such laws not only damage authors’ reputations and livelihoods but also lead to self-censorship as writers fear losing access to school and library markets. With the median author income already at a concerning $20,000 annually, these additional economic pressures threaten the sustainability of the writing profession.

This decision sends a clear message: the Constitution protects the right to read, the right to access diverse literature, and the right of authors to have their voices heard. It provides a powerful template for challenging similar laws across the country, reaffirming the principle that governments must apply the Miller standard and consider a book’s overall value rather than isolated passages, respect the professional expertise of librarians and educators, and insist on actual evidence rather than speculation to justify censorship.

 This case is part of the Authors Guild’s ongoing work to fight book bans across the country, including in Rhode Island, Colorado, Iowa, Utah, Idaho, Arkansas, Texas, California, Virginia, and elsewhere.