JACOB HOLMES, Alabama Political Reporter; 5th Circuit reverses injunction against Texas library that removed challenged books
"The majority opinion took a derisive tone about the plaintiffs’ arguments, calling them “over-caffeinated.”
“We note with amusement (and some dismay) the unusually over-caffeinated arguments made in this case,” the majority wrote. “Judging from the rhetoric in the briefs, one would think Llano County had planned to stage a book burning in front of the library.” As an example, “one amicus intones, ‘Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people.’ Take a deep breath, everyone. No one is banning (or burning) books.”
The dissenting judges took issue with that tone.
“The majority—apparently ‘amuse[d]’ by expressions of concern regarding government censorship—disparages such concerns as ‘over-caffeinated’ because, if a library patron cannot find a particular book in their local public library, they can simply buy it,” the judges write. “This response is both disturbingly flippant and legally unsound. First, as should be obvious, libraries provide critical access to books and other materials for many Americans who cannot afford to buy every book that draws their interest, and recent history demonstrates that public libraries easily become the sites of frightful government censorship.”
APLS officials already touting the decision
That decision is already being touted by board members leading the Alabama Public Library Service, although Alabama falls in the 11th circuit, not the Fifth.
“It’s so common sense, no library has every book that has ever been written,” Wahl told Jeff Poor on the Jeff Poor Show Tuesday. “Every library has to choose which books are in its collections and which are not. This is not book banning, this is not book burning. This is literally just deciding what is most edifying, what is most beneficial for our readers … This is not about politics, this is about what is best for our children and what is best that we put in front of them.”"
