Can a Florida School District Ban a Children's Book About Gay Penguins?
The answer's more complicated than you might think.

The authors of a popular children's book which depicts two male penguins who raise a chick together are suing a Florida school district after it barred students in kindergarten through third grade from accessing the book in district libraries. The suit argues that the ban violates the First Amendment by depriving children of their constitutional right to access information and engaging in viewpoint discrimination against the authors.
Following the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, public schools in Florida were banned from engaging in classroom discussions on "sexual orientation or gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade "in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." In April, the Florida Board of Education voted to expand the ban to all grades, with narrow exceptions for age-appropriate health education.
While neither law explicitly mentions school libraries, many schools began to remove books from their libraries out of concern that books' subject matter would violate the ban. One of those frequently targeted books was And Tango Makes Three, a picture book published in 2005 that tells the story of two male penguins who mate and eventually raise a chick together, written by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson. The book has been the subject of frequent ban attempts due to its depiction of same-sex parents.
According to the lawsuit, public schools in Lake County barred access to the book for children in kindergarten through third grade sometime before December 2022. A public records request found that the school district justified this decision by citing the book's "content regarding sexual orientation/gender identification prohibited in [the Parental Rights in Education Act]."
The lawsuit argues that this ban constitutes illegal viewpoint discrimination. "They barred students from accessing Tango because of its content," notes the complaint. "Namely, the story of a same-sex animal couple with an adopted child—and its expressed viewpoint—namely, that same-sex relationships and families with same-sex parents exist; that they can be happy, healthy, and loving; and that same-sex parents can adopt and raise healthy children."
The complaint adds that similar stories featuring heterosexual relationships have not received the same treatment and that the ban violates students' First Amendment right to receive information.
While professors at public colleges have broad First Amendment protection for teaching decisions, public K-12 school teachers and students have much narrower expressive rights. Local and state governments have broad discretion to determine what should be taught in K-12 classrooms, making it more difficult to challenge book bans.
While the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a student challenging a school board's decision to remove several books from his school library in 1982, the case divided the Court and resulted in no majority opinion. This has led to an unclear precedent about the legality of school library book bans. Just last year, an effort led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to block the removal of several books about "people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups" from a school district's libraries was rejected by a federal judge in Missouri.
"For Plaintiffs to have a fair chance of prevailing on their First Amendment claim, the First Amendment would need to prohibit public school officials from removing a limited amount of books from their library shelves or the First Amendment would need to prohibit public schools from temporarily removing books from their library shelves while they determine the books' suitability," wrote Judge Matthew T. Schelp in his denial of the ACLU's request for a preliminary injunction. "Plaintiffs have not coherently explained how the First Amendment prohibits either."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My school library outrageously banned Penthouse. Hustler, and even Playboy magazines from the elementary school curriculum. Fortunately, they still allowed the books I'll Suck A Dick For A Crack Rock, Filming Bestiality For Fun and Profit, and Raping Babies Is For Everyone!.
Ah, the Hunter Biden biography trilogy.
Easily start receiving more than $600 every single day from home in your part time. i made $18781 from this job in my spare time afte my college. easy to do job and its regular income are awesome. no skills needed to do this job all you need to know is how to copy and paste stuff online. join this today by follow details on this page.
.
.
Apply Now Here—————————->>> https://Www.Coins71.Com
Why you always gotta make it about his dick? 🙂
Call up Larry Flynt and ask him to sue for the right to have Hustler in all school and public libraries, available to all ages. Bet he’d go for it.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't go for anything anymore, and hasn't for a bit more than two years at this point. Except maybe BRAAAAAAINS.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link----------------------------------------->>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start.
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)>>> https://www.Salarybiz.com
Well done.
This challenge is idiotic at an epic level. Any jurist who entertains it for a moment is clearly not following the law.
To our intrepid author... no, it is not complicated. It is politics. And taking the side of those seeking to divide and conquer isn't libertarian.
But it is predictable.
Oh my, another journalist drinks the Alphabet Spectrum's kool-aid and equates a decision not to buy/shelve a book in a K-3rd grade library with a book ban. It is not a ban, it is a purchasing decision for the school district.
If the book was actually banned, in any practical definition of the word 'banned', then families could go get the book at the public library, couldn't buy it at the local Barnes and Noble or on-line from Amazon...
I wish journalists would please look up the actual definition of the word 'banned' - it doesn't mean deciding not to shelve a given book in public schools K-3 libraries.
Is it really the case that when a library chooses to not to buy/shelve a book, that is in fact a "book ban"?
Not Banning Speech: "We will not stock this book in our library."
Actually Banning Speech: "Your student cannot wear this shirt in our school". <---Actual First Amendment complaint, where the schools have been confirmed to have the power to prevent speech.
If Schools have the power to prevent a child from wearing a shirt, then they have the power to prevent their library from stocking a book.
You’re just a bigot and I bet you voted for Trump! - jeff
I wish journalists would please look up the actual definition of the word ‘banned’ – it doesn’t mean deciding not to shelve a given book in public schools K-3 libraries.
See, the problem is, you're considering them as libertarians or even just normal people. They're not. If they were just libertarians or fellow travelers, people biased in favor of free speech throwing the word "ban" around a little too liberally, you would expect them to have been throwing the word "ban" around when Twitter was shadowbanning Conservatives and specific COVID narratives but they generally were not. Quite the opposite, when we got no-shit proof that Twitter employees were literally and unequivocally blocking messages to/from followers and deprioritizing/filtering/blacklisting posts and posters without informing anybody either through direct notification or through policies and TOS, Reason's general reply was "See! They weren't shadowbanning anyone! They were just blacklisting people without telling anyone!"
Just like 'discrimination', 'racism', 'sexism', 'phobias', 'conspiracies', 'theories', 'science', even rights... they don't give a shit what the word "ban" actually means outside of its ability to incite others against you for even knowing and/or asserting that it has some true and impartial meaning.
Pedo Peter's Bathtime.
I bet they can perfectly legally choose to not have the book in their school libraries. Which is like banning, except completely different.
The suit argues that the ban violates the First Amendment by depriving children of their constitutional right to access information and engaging in viewpoint discrimination against the authors.
I don't recall the first amendment mentioning school children having a right to having everything under the sun available to them in their school libraries.
I bet those school libraries don't allow K-3 to access Mein Kampf either. In fact, they may not even have that book on hand at all.
Or "Fifty Shades of Grey", discriminating against other sexual interests.
What about the Anarchist's Cookbook, is that in the school library?
The "Cookbook" was my first thought
It's so sad that the only place in the entirety of Florida to get books are libraries in elementary schools.
Interestingly, the real life example that the book is based on is not quite the story it seems. The penguins are not "gay", for instance. They had one year where there were not enough females for every male and the penguins drive to pair up is so strong that they will pair with a male if they have no other options. In subsequent years when there were females available, the two male penguins had heterosexual matings.
Gay penguin sellouts!
Exactly. Two male penguins "adopted" a youngster. Since, from what little I know of penguins, the work-load in caring for the youngsters is also evenly divided by both parents, anyway. It would even seem that there isn't any "role model" aspect, let alone "gender."
^This.
Related males raising chicks together doesn't mean they're mating.
"The penguins are not “gay”, for instance."
True.
Continuing with the attempt to deal with the facts.
While the Reason article claims that the book "... tells the story of two male penguins who mate and eventually raise a chick together ....", that's also not true.
Male penguins don't mate (assuming that mating in the above sentence means "to have intercourse and create an egg") - it's not possible. It was their zoo keeper who found an abandoned egg and placed it in the two male penguin's nest.
It may be worth noting that a review of the book (by Frederic and Mary Ann Brussat) does say, "It [the book] salutes the fact that homosexual animals, just like gay human couples, can serve as loving and caring parents." I have no complaint with the conclusion, but I'm not sure how one determines that two male penguins are "homosexual". Heterosexual male penguins, by nature, already "serve as loving and caring parents" - it hardly seems unusual, much less homosexual, that two male penguins would make "loving and caring parents"]
So 'gay' as in the 3 Men and A Baby was gay?
Plus, penguins, being birds, have the advantage of being able to feed a baby chick with either sex. Both regurgitate their food to the chick. Therefore, two non-mating males could easily take care of the egg and chick. Placental mammals (like ourselves) don't have that luxury.
The book should be rejected merely on the grounds that "we don't serve up hopium and bullshit as fact to our kids".
Right. Regardless of whether the penguins actually were gay or not is triply removed from the free speech issue. The school district has the federally-unfettered ability to refuse to stock a perfectly accurate iPhone 14 repair manual even if only because the librarian is an Android user.
The Conservatives are panicking narrative has been proven consistently wrong for over 2 decades now. How many times has “We allow kids in Hooters!” and “We teach kids Snow White!” been brought up? At this point, what the FL district is doing *should* be the obvious, conciliatory libertarian middle ground position between the two extremes. You can go to the local municipal library, borrow a copy from a friend, or even buy a copy off of Amazon all you like, there is no ban but, at the same time, the school library, *any* school library, is under precisely *zero* obligation to stock the book.
One of the penguins later mated with a female, the other never did.
They are "bi". It is still in the alphabet spectrum.
Oh Good I'm about to publish "Heather Has Two Mommies and They Both Have Penises".
One guy.... just one guy is thinking.
Not buying 20,000 copies of your book for school libraries is discrimination against your viewpoint.
Genius
BTW. Emma forgot to mention who brought the suit. Maybe we can start a gofundme campaign for them. It's $8.99 at Amazon.
“The authors of a popular children's book which depicts two male penguins who raise a chick together are suing a Florida school district after it barred students in kindergarten through third grade from accessing the book in district libraries.”
I missed that. So the authors are suing under the "Bake that Cake" clause.
I'm not sure it rises even to the level of sanity that "Bake the Cake" does.
As a fundamental principle of the 1A, school libraries everywhere should be prevented from discriminating against my adopted cultural heritage and make deep dish pizza available to all students. If not that, then at least ban New York Eyetalian-style pitas from being passed off as pizzas.
Vote for me, and not Emma “I’m in loooove with the 1A!” Cramp, I mean Camp, for student counsel President.
No, they don't. They have broad invented-out-of-whole-cloth-by-the-Warren-Court protection, which is not remotely the same thing.
Once again, the problem is the government schools. Abolish government schools and give parents 100% choice of where to send their children for eduction, including the options of home schooling, microschooling, private schooling, religious schooling, secular schooling, etc.
This problem only exists because our system is predicated on the Divine Right of Rulers to decide for you. Bullshit. These rulers can't even run their own lives, but we want them to run ours? Maybe the state needs to continue funding eduction, but they can do that with backpack funding or vouchers or whatnot. No reason to erect a prison-like school monopoly. What the monopoly does is pit parent against parent so only the government and union can win.
Don't like Pepsi but prefer Coke? Then get Coke. Don't like the books in the school library? Go to a different school. Problem solved.
Government created monopolies are inherently flawed, they have a 'pre-existing ccondition'.
I mean, I think it's been well established that Joe Biden knows how to raise children...
That's spelled "sniff"
Absolutely correct. The real problem is our flawed system.
But since we have this flawed system where parents have to play the zero-sum game of deciding one curriculum for the monopoly, it is a bit rich that people keep trying to invoke the First Amendment, or morally condemning parents that exercise their right to determine what will comprise the content of their curriculum.
If parents ought to have the right to decide what their children should be taught, then it isn't immoral for them to argue for the implementation of that curriculum in their school. And yet we see Reason regularly wringing their hands (as they do here) about the First Amendment. Guess what? The First Amendment may give authors the right to speak, but it also gives parents the right to determine which speech their children will hear or read. And it is asinine that Reason would argue for the rights of the former, while ignoring the rights of the latter.
Can a Florida School District Ban Mein Kampf?
Can a Florida School District Ban The Protocols of the Elders of zion?
Can a Florida School District Ban the Bell Curve?
Can a Florida School District Ban The Turner Diaries?
Can a Florida School District Ban the Anarchist's Cookbook?
Someone above already gave Hustler as an example.
solid.
At least Playboy had the articles.
(Yes, there were copies of the magazine published with just the articles out there.)
Can my kid get Song of the South or Birth of a Nation at this library in DvD or streaming?
what about Faces of Death, a classic
Some say the production value really dropped off around FOD V and VI, but without regard to the social commentary, I'm really of the mind that it dropped off somewhere around the opening title of the original.
Let's not even get crazy; are the A Song of Ice and Fire books (source material for Game of Thrones) appropriate for k - 3rd grade?
It’s not complicated at all, you dumb bitch
Ah, yes, The old when is a ban not a ban trick.
Getting very, very, old reason.
Of course a school district cannot ban a book.
But they can decide what to buy and what to put in their library.
As always.
(was this the obligatory 'hate on DeSantis' article for today? A bit too subtle, I think)
It's more when is a non-ban a ban in Emma's dishonest framing.
There is an effect at work that I think describe the gulf between many social conservatives and many libertarians.
The right to consume or not consume a thing is inherent to a property owner. Libertarians must consume that the right to NOT consume something cannot be considered immoral. If I don't want to read that book, I shouldn't have to justify myself.
And yet, too many Libertarians think that when the state appropriates the choice from consumers, and instead gives them a vote in that decision, it suddenly becomes immoral for consumers to not want to consume something.
Some people do not want their kids reading queer-theory nonsense. And since the government has taken away the choice of consumption and instead given them a vote on what a collective will consume, it is pretty shitty for Reason to argue that these voters suddenly lose their right to NOT consume something, just because the government has collectivized things.
Those aren't libertarians but leftists traipsing around in libertarian skinsuits.
Here's the problem: government may not prevent an adult from reading whatever the adult wants to read. If we can't see the difference between not preventing you from reading a particular book and being required to provide you with a particular book you might want to read, then we have a real problem here and it's not about the First Amendment. It's very similar to the difference between not outlawing abortions and providing a free abortion to anyone who wants one at taxpayer expense. I wish Florida schools would teach logic in the public schools and require everyone to pass a standardized test before they are allowed to graduate.
"require everyone to pass a standardized test before they are allowed to graduate"
Or write an article for Reason.
CB
Following the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, public schools in Florida were banned from engaging in classroom discussions on “sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” In April, the Florida Board of Education voted to expand the ban to all grades, with narrow exceptions for age-appropriate health education.
While neither law explicitly mentions school libraries, many schools began to remove books from their libraries out of concern that books’ subject matter would violate the ban.
So , par for the course, they mis-applied a law that doesn’t actually say what they were worried about and started a kerfuffle for nothing.
No groomer, they didn't misapply the law. They saw the law passed and the polling for it and made reasonable, permissible judgements about expanding it's reasoning into related areas.
'Public schools in Lake County barred access to the book for children in kindergarten through third grade sometime before December 2022.' Barring access for a subset of the student population does not a banned book make, Camp. In the parlance of your generation and in-group, 'do better.'
Yes. And no 1A wasn't violated, the author was free to write, publish and sell their wares; they have no right to force people to buy it whether an individual or a public entity.
The answer's more complicated than you might think.
I doubt it is.
If this is a first amendment issue, then schools not only should, but MUST include anti-Semitic material in the library so the children can engage in viewpoint discrimination against the authors.
Also, pornography is protected by the first amendment.
Shikha Dahlmia: "Far from being prophetic, The Camp of the Saints is spectacularly wrong at nearly every level.
So here's my cri de couer to fellow conservatives: Banish this book from your library. Purge it from your consciousness. This book should never have been admitted into civilized company, but especially not now ,when America is a polyglot, multi-ethnic — and, yes — multicultural country where Indian folks like us are likely to be your friends and family.
You can still stand athwart the Statue of Liberty and yell stop to the huddled masses. Just don't do it while waving this scatological screed — lest it besmirch you."
Emma Camp: "But the 1A says we *have* too!"
Every actually reasonable (*drink*) person over the age of about 8: You retards know how federalism works and *do* realize there are like a trillion other options across several thousand different forms and media, right?
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
School district's lawyer should respond with a list of books that parents and some students have also requested, like: Proper Care, Maintenance and Feeding of Your AR-15.
Top the list with something like The Turner Diaries, then something more like Bracken's Enemies Trilogy, then every Tom Clancy novel ever written, *then* Proper Care, Maintenance and Feeding of Your AR-15 and a requirement of either concession from either side or one-at-a-time, Oxford-style debate as to whether each one goes in or stays out.
Many forms of birds at least share child-rearing.
With ostriches, the male digs the nest, helps sit on the eggs and feed the babies, and teaches the young how to forage.
Many large birds of prey like eagles and hawks build the nest together, sit on the eggs together, and feed the chicks together.
So, if the Mother is killed, one could envision situations in the animal kingdom where more than one male helps raise the young. This has nothing to do with promoting a gay lifestyle among humans; just goes to show how paranoid some of these culture warriors are.
Some experts say that infanticide occurs in up to 25% of mammalian species. That fact would probably be more disturbing to young children than a penguin with two Dads.
This has nothing to do with promoting a gay lifestyle among humans; just goes to show how paranoid some of these culture warriors are.
Ah, the same, tired old, obviously retarded, "Social and religious conservatives who've been building and curating libraries literally since the Library at Alexandria are suddenly responsible for this most recent controversy."
How dare you inject penguins into matters of human foolishness?
All the taxpayers and teachers in this school district should sue the authors for damages as every dollar spent defending the school from frivolous lawsuits like these is money that cannot be spent on actual education and salaries. They should ask for every dollar spent on legal fees plus punitive damages.
Ban the libraries.
Just another blessing of Commie-Education. /s
Any indoctrination not being mandatory is a 1st Amendment violation. /s
This is about stupidity on both sides, and both sides wanting the schools and courts to validate their stupidity. The book is not about 2 gay penguins. It's about two male penguins who couldn't find mates, found an abandoned egg, and hatched and raised it themselves (probably because of the instinct to sit on eggs).
Those who have pushed for banning the book are being stupid, because it does not depict anything gay at all. It explicitly says the penguins looked around and saw the other penguins doing something and that they felt left out. This was about finding a way to join in with the crowd. They weren't feeling left out about not being in a relationship with another penguin, but that they had no egg to sit on. The book never depicts any interactions between the male penguins, only between each and the egg/hatchling.
The librarians who looked at this same story, and were either too stupid or too cowardly to stand up and say, "this has nothing to do with same-sex relationships," probably shouldn't be curating a school library. I'd hope an adult in a position of some authority would have a little backbone.
Can a Florida School District Ban a Children’s Book About Gay Penguins?
Yes. The 1A clearly states that “Congress shall make no law…” your local school district drafting their own policies, informal habits, or even simply taking no action other than issuing a verbal “We’re not buying that.” is neither Congress nor making law. If you think they are, then, by your own precepts, they also have to go back to stocking The Bible, The Torah, The Talmud, The Koran, The I-Ching, The Itihasa and The Vedas, Roots, Das Kapital, The Birth of A Nation, Mein Kampf, The Motorcycle Diaries, The Turner Diaries, The Motorcycle Diaries (not to mention all the comparatively banal but equally impractical stuff like the entire collected works of Stephen King, Tom Clancy, and anything that is now or was once considered part of Star Wars or Star Trek cannon)... all equally in the name of free speech. Which brings us right back around to your utterly retarded, beyond-Trump-levels of egomaniacal idiopathic, sociopathic narcissism, and fantastically fucking Statist notion that every school district everywhere should stock all the books, and *all* the books *you* deem acceptably unoffensive, and *none* of the books you find offensive simply because it would offend your sensibilities about The Constitution or other peoples' perception of their own sexuality or whatever otherwise. You should be ashamed, in the name of liberty and rationality, for having asked the question, your employer should really be questioning having paid you to ask the question, and your friends and family should be planning an intervention among themselves about how to get you help. Even if not to figure out how they failed you so utterly, then at least to prevent your idiocy from continuing to reflect so poorly, but brightly, on them. Your pet cause is not special. Fuck you, cut spending. Next question.
So, according to these imbeciles, Playboy, Penthouse, OUI, Jugs, etc, should be available in the periodicals section of every public school library serving K-12? “Debbie Does Dallas” in the media section?
They want these books available to children at a young age to indoctrinate them, to normalize their beliefs on children. Nothing involving sex needs to be nor should be available to children under 12-13, the normal age of puberty. Puberty is when this information becomes relevant.
That's rich! Wow! Gay authors suing for viewpoint discrimination?
Since when do students in grades K-3 have a "right" to just anything anybody writes? At a time where the activists of that side of persuasion are banning Dr. Seuss??? And not even a socialist writer of kids' books are not safe from this?
This is the big problem with government schooling. It's time to separate schools from state!
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.SalaryApp1.com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM