Florida lawmakers are again fighting over what students should be allowed to read. House Bill 1119 would tighten rules for removing school materials objected to as “harmful to minors,” a move supporters say protects children.
At the center of the proposal is a stricter definition of what counts as inappropriate content. HB 1119 defines “harmful to minors” as material depicting nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement when it predominantly appeals to a “prurient, shameful, or morbid interest” and is “patently offensive” by prevailing adult community standards for what is suitable for minors.
The bill’s scope extends beyond textbooks. It applies to “any other materials used in a classroom,” materials “made available in a school or classroom library,” and materials “included on a reading list.” While parental challenges to school books have existed for decades, opponents say the process has shifted in recent years from narrow concerns about obscenity to broader attempts to remove books dealing with race, gender and LGBTQ+ themes.
One of the bill’s sponsors, Republican Rep. Doug Bankson, insists that the bill is not about banning books – the word “ban” is not explicitly used. “We have these standards throughout society,” said Bankson during the Jan. 27 House State of Affairs Committee meeting. “This is not a left or right issue, but about right or wrong when it comes to our children.”
Under HB 1119, the process for challenging materials would become faster and more restrictive. If a parent or county resident objects to material on the basis that it is pornographic, prohibited or harmful to minors, the material must be removed within five school days after receipt of the objection and remain unavailable to students at that school until the objection is resolved.
The bill also narrows what districts can consider when deciding whether to keep a book. It states that school districts may not consider potential “literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” as a basis for retaining material if it contains material harmful to minors. But that doesn’t only include books like Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita or the infamous Marquis De Sade novel The 120 Days of Sodom – it extends broadly over literature with what some critics call ambiguous guidelines and subjective enforcement.
That ambiguity was questioned by State Rep. Yvonne Hinson. “We can’t even ask our teachers, librarians or parents to use that as a guide to removing a book. Especially if I’ve got to remove it. I’m not going to be the one to figure out if it’s making me sexually aroused,” quipped Hinson, getting a laugh from the room, Bankson included.
Bankson, however, argued the bill aligns with standards already used throughout society, like rating systems for movies, and reflects long-held obscenity standards ruled on by the Supreme Court.
Beyond content definitions, HB 1119 builds out the process for contesting instructional materials. District school boards must adopt a policy describing how objections will be handled and provide a public-facing objection form. The bill also allows a parent or county resident to contest the school board’s adoption of instructional material by filing a petition within 30 days of adoption. The school board must hold at least one open public hearing before an unbiased and qualified hearing officer, and the school board’s decision after the hearing is final.
However, the bill includes an additional review mechanism for parents. If a parent disagrees with the district school board’s determination on an objection, the parent may request the Commissioner of Education appoint a special magistrate – a Florida Bar member with at least five years’ experience in administrative law – who will review the facts and provide a recommended decision to the State Board of Education.
As lawmakers debated the bill’s intent, opponents pointed to how the proposal could affect older students, particularly those in Advanced Placement (AP) courses. Rep. Wallace Aristide raised concerns over book access for AP classes, where students often read complex literature and texts that may include mature themes. The standard for appropriate material for a 17-year-old cannot, according to Bankson, be thrust upon younger students. Without a school-based exemption for older students, students may have to rely on public libraries outside school to access certain books.
In response, Elizabeth Savage, a student in Hillsborough, stated during public testimony that the bill creates “an unnecessary disadvantage for public school kids when applying for college and competing for scholastic opportunities.” Numerous other public school students, faculty and parents expressed their opposition to the bill. Megan, another student of Hillsborough County, soberly stated, “I fear for my generation’s literacy.”
Despite nearly two hours of public testimony – mostly in opposition – about the bill, it is moving forward with a majority vote.