Voz media US Voz.us
Apple store Voz-media Play store Voz Media

Penguin Random House and John Green sue Iowa for banning books with sexual content and gender ideology in schools

Authors Laurie Halse Anderson, Jodi Picoult and Malinda Lo are also listed as plaintiffs.

Fotografía de un cartel de Penguin Random House durante una feria de Londres. Superpuesto, se puede ver el rostro del autor John Green.

(Wikimedia Commons / Voz Media)

Published by
Santiago Ospital

The publisher Penguin Random House and four authors, including John Green, filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Iowa authorities over the Senate File 496 (SF 496) law, which regulates sexual content - including books - and gender identity in schools.

The lawsuit seeks the removal of the state rule, arguing that it violates freedom of expression, guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the equal protection, contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. In the words of the publisher's CEO, Nihar Malaviya:

We know that not every book we publish will be for every reader, but we must protect the right for all Americans, including students, parents, caregivers, teachers, and librarians to have equitable access to books, and to continue to decide what they read.

Also involved in the lawsuit are the Iowa State Education Association (ISEA), three educators, a parent, and a high school student. As for the authors, in addition to John Green (the lawsuit claims that the law vetoed their works Looking for Alaska and The Fault in Our Stars), also listed as plaintiffs are Laurie Halse Anderson (Speak and Shout), Jodi Picoult (19 Minutes), and Malinda Lo (Last Night at the Telegraph Club and A Scatter of Light).

The lawsuit, in detail

The lawsuit criticizes both the provisions of the law against the limitations of content classified as sexual, as well as against those linked to gender identity and sexual orientation.

As for the first, the so-called "Age-Appropriate Standard," the plaintiffs maintain that the guidelines for banning books are vague and ambiguous. For example, what a "sex act" is, is not clearly defined. Furthermore, they maintain that the books that are removed from the shelves "are not pornography, nor do they constitute obscenity, which is the applicable legal standard."

Among other reproaches, they assure that the norm vetoes content for all students without considering the age difference between them, and that it orders the banning of entire books even if they contain only a few pages of text considered sexual. In addition:

The Age-Appropriate Standard does not account for the value of a book as a whole or its literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value.

Regarding gender ideology, they recognize that SF 496 does not refer to books specifically, but to teaching in general. This is ambiguous, they maintain, because districts and schools don't know if it applies to reading material. The ambiguity would also go further: any book that mentions the gender of a member of a couple can be banned or that describes a marriage with any adjective, "such as 'happy'."

It acknowledges, however, that the ban is intended to directly target LGBT "viewpoints and authors." This, they claim, is discriminatory.

Senate File 496, John Green v. Iowa by Santiago Adolfo Ospital on Scribd

tracking