The Florida Senate’s new version of anti-graphic-novel bill SB1692 refocuses its attack on comic images.
One of the key points in the CBLDF’s successful defense against the attempt to find Gender Queer obscene in Virginia was our argument that the complaint only looked at select images in the book rather than considering its meaning and value as a whole. This is a fundamental principle in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence governing obscenity and material harmful to minors.
And now, Florida is trying to get rid of that.
Yesterday, the Florida Senate’ Criminal Justice committee approved via a 6-3 party-line vote a revised version Florida Senate Bill 1692, which would remove the “taken as a whole” and “literary, artistic, political, or scientific” content standards from the state statute governing the distribution of material harmful to minors for material shown, distributed, or sold to K-12 students. Under the SB1692 rule, graphic novels and manga could be deemed harmful to minors on the basis of a single image regardless of its significance in context.
On one level, the new committee version is a slight improvement on the earlier draft, which would criminalized school book fairs for including allegedly offensive comics on the basis of a single image without any consideration of the book’s literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The March 20 substitute version removes the redefinition of harmful to minors from state criminal law in favor of limiting it to the process for challenging books in schools.
Nonetheless, the bill, if passed, would still have a significant impact on graphic novels in schools and beyond – it creates strong incentives for schools to treat comic art as a significant risk factor for substantial financial liability, and the resulting decline in orders for specific books and comics media as a whole would have knock-on effects for the general comics market.
To see how SB1692 would do this, note how it redefines “harmful to minors” in the context of books in school classrooms or libraries.
- First, the draft removes “taken as a whole” from the standard for determining whether the book appeals to the prurient interest – as a result, an entire book could be deemed problematic on the basis of a single image.
- Next, it makes a pretense of adhering to the “as a whole” standard by shifting that phrase to refer the community “as a whole” in the patently offensive test. It’s a transparent attempt to make the bill look like it retains the “taken as a whole” standard, but since that phrase is supposed to refer to the books and the word “community” has been defined holistically for decades, any judge remotely familiar with First Amendment should be able to identify the trick.
- Then – and this is perhaps the most egregious move – the new “harmful to minors” definition completely removes the longstanding requirement that a material harmful to minors must, when taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The only safeguard for protecting a book against censorship would be for it to be used in a health class or approved by the State Board of Education, which, under present circumstances, would not be likely for graphic novels currently under attack.
This revision to Florida’s obscenity statute has two clear goals. The first is to keep comics out of classrooms and school libraries. In court cases and legislative debates around the country, graphic novels have been exhibit A in the arguments for eliminating longtime legal protections for material with serious educational value. SB1692 would establish a review process that not only integrates its new definition of material harmful to minors, but requires the immediate (i.e., with five days) removal of any book challenged by a parent or county resident. Even if the book were to survive subsequent review, a school’s decision in the book’s favor would be subject appeal, with the school on the hook to pay for for the whole process if its decision is reversed.
The impact of this redefinition is intensified by the bill’s amended process for challenging books in schools.
- Any challenged book would have to be removed within five days and kept inaccessible until being cleared in review.
- An individual opposed to a district’s ruling in a book’s favor could appeal the decision to the State Board of Education, which is given the authority to appoint a lawyer to review the book again.
- The school district would have to pay the costs of the appeal.
- A school district found not to be in compliance with SB1692’s requirements by the State Board of Education could lose its state funding and be subject to other penalties.
All in all, the goal of SB1692 is clear. One of our most effective tools in combating attempts to target graphic novels and manga has been to highlight their value when taken as a whole. This bill would eliminate that effective safeguard and bankrupt schools that dare to respect it, giving the ultimate power to those who propagate viral slurs that graphic novels and manga are pornographic – or worse. Florida
Bills such as this are why we fight, and we’ll be sure to keep you posted on what happens next.
