The 2023 FL Censorship Bills

The 2023 Florida Legislative Session is underway, and a number of bad bills have been filed that will impact the freedom to read in Florida's public schools. 

The below post is long, but it will provide you with specific line item concerns you can reference when writing your legislators or expressing your concerns about these bills with friends and neighbors. It's important we use this time to speak up and speak out. Now is the most opportune time to stop this language from becoming law. Once it's on the books, it is a lot harder to repeal or amend it.

A Top Level Rundown

Parents have the right to direct the education of their children, and this includes giving them the space to collaborate with their educators to provide additional materials as well as the emotional and mental support needed to meet each student's unique needs. These education bills encourage the removal and restriction of library books based on the most conservative viewpoints and limit the tools available to both parents and educators. 

Allowing a single viewpoint to suppress access to information in a community, as HB1069 seeks to do, or giving the state the authority to overrule local governments based on arbitrary criteria is censorship. Furthermore, the changes in HB1463 and SB1620 will extend the censorship issues already evident in our schools into the consumer space - giving complete authority over to the government regarding what information parents can choose to make available to their children.

HB1223 and SB1320 seek to expand the Parental Rights in Education Act to Pre-K through grade 8 without fixing the language that has allowed districts to discriminately limit access to books about LGBTQ+ people. The undefined terms of "classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity" have been understood to target only LGBTQ+ topics in both the classroom and on library shelves. We cannot allow that to continue - let alone expand - when the mental health of all students is critical to a safe and inviting school environment.

These bills also limit a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of their child by not allowing for a child’s accepted pronouns to be used while at school. The sex of a person - even with the use of the absurd definition offered - is not an outward expression that an educator or contractor would be able to recognize without inquiry. 

The limits on higher education in HB999 and SB266 are unconstitutional considering this bill impacts adults choosing to invest in their education. The proposed benefits of increased government oversight through expansion of power given to the appointed Boards will be overshadowed by the chilling and unsupportive learning environment these provisions will create. Diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs prevent monoculturalism, inequities in education, and exclusionary practices. And the limitations placed on specific topics will discourage talented professors and analytical students from seeking out Florida’s colleges and universities.

Most of the provisions in these bills are reckless and broadly worded. While the legislation seeks to address parent and taxpayer concerns, it does so in a way that assumes all communities desire the same amount of state oversight. It is best to leave these types of laws and policies to the local government tasked with serving the varied needs of Florida’s diverse districts. 

Please do not let HB1069/SB1320, HB1463/SB1620, HB1223/SB1320, and HB999/SB266 move forward without carefully considering the dangerous precedents these bills set and the authoritarian impacts they will have over our individual rights and liberties.

HB1069/SB1320

HB1069 and SB1320 broaden the oversight of taxpayer funded instructional materials to nondescriptly include any media available in the classroom setting, including items personally funded by educators, parents, and students. Parents have the right to direct the education of their children, and this includes a collaborative effort between educator and parent to provide additional materials best suited to a child's needs. Any concern a parent may have over access to additional, unknown materials in the classroom can be resolved through a much more cost effective parent opt-out system.

Other provisions in the law also remove the role of parents and community members closely tied to a particular school by allowing for the hasty removal of library books based on a single objection and without a review committee made up of members representative of the district. Language in this bill eliminates the thorough examination of each book to consider its overall value, as happens with the books that are included on the current ELA B.E.S.T. list. If these books are allowed to contain sexual conduct because they have been found to hold literary value, all books deserve the same level of consideration.

Lastly, notwithstanding the obvious issues with a definition of "sex" that fails to recognize the existence of intersex people and relies on a stable and "functional" reproductive system to classify a person into one of two categories, this bill removes the local government's ability to address current health risks through education by moving the approval of all sexual health curriculum to the state level. 

There are a number of issues being overlooked with the plain reading of these bills. Here are our top concerns:

• HB1069 recognizes the importance, and current standard, of health education at the middle school level (grades 6 through 8); however, the ability to accurately and effectively fulfill these standards will be hindered by the K8 restrictions in HB1223.
  • Limiting instruction in this way and not making it clear whether nonfiction library books are a part of "instruction" would limit access and support a student may need should they happen to be among the many that experience menstruation prior to grade 6.
• The definition of “sex” offered in this bill puts emphasis on one’s reproductive function.
  • Intersex people exist and this definition would negate teaching that fact
    • HB 1421 allows for an intersex person (or parents) to choose the surgery necessary that would assign the person to a particular sex. This is contrary to the idea that sex is binary and unchangeable.
  • Functionality of one’s reproductive system is not stable; hormones and other factors can impact functionality and ability to reproduce.
  • The definition of impregnate is “make pregnant” and though sperm, egg, and uterus are needed, a specific biological male is not at the time of insemination.
    • A doctor can impregnate any person with a functional womb and who is willing to carry a fetus to term. This is the type of lesson that would be necessary if we aren’t allowed to instruct on sexual orientation prior to grade 9.
    • Stating that a “biological male” is the one impregnating a “biological female” denies the fact that over 1 million people have been born in the US since 1987 with the assistance of fertility treatments.
• Shifting the selection of health curriculum to the state level will limit local officials’ ability to educate on increased sexual health risks among their particular communities. Reproductive health includes sexual health and diseases; the needs for each community may differ and focus may need to shift at times to best protect the students from factors that are specific to their community. 
• Classroom libraries purchased with taxpayer funds should be subject to the same provisions of all taxpayer funded library materials; however, professional educators, parents, and community members should not be limited in the tools they can provide individual students if willing to make a personal investment and with the individual parents' approval to support their student. 
  • Exclude private collections from this additional oversight; provided a teacher has parent permission to offer the student the additional resources. The broad language of "materials available in the classroom" could limit students from keeping and sharing books they bring in from home.
• The “parents have the right to read passages” language is lacking important context and the statement read plainly is ill-defined. Adults have the right to read whatever they want, and if they are concerned about a particular book, we should encourage them to read the entirety of the work.
  • This could mean that the objection forms need to be made publicly available for all to review (without PRR).
  • This could mean that the challenged passages must be made available (possibly copyright issue).
  • Or this could mean that parents can read these passages aloud during school board meetings.
• Review committees must include parents with students in the district that will be impacted by the decision of the committee
• The addition of “sexual conduct” in this bill mirrors the actions HB1463 seeks to take by eliminating the Miller Test from the “harmful to minors” definition. 
  • If the inclusion of sexual conduct is understood to be harmful to minors so much so that its presence, no matter how insignificant in the overall text, is grounds for immediate removal, then we cannot allow for any sexual conduct to be present in our books (including the Bible, Shakespeare, classic art, and nonfiction sex education texts).  
  • This bill and HB1463 should not allow forgiveness for the literature and other media deemed appropriate by those in Tallahassee who have the opportunity to judge an entire work (like the Bible). 
    • In a different part of this bill the school board oversight of said materials is broadened, but this clause would tie the hands of the local government and again give more power to the state.
  • A diverse review committee should remain the standard in determining the level of censorship the community is willing to accept.
    • Community consensus will vary. What one community may deem appropriate can vary based on the makeup of said community. A free electorate must question the desire of the state government to usurp the voice of the people that elected local leaders to set policy for its schools. 
• The immediate removal of books that have been approved and selected by a certified media specialist is a “guilty until proven innocent” policy. This language cannot be approved and the books should remain in place until the review process is exhausted. 
  • There is enough proof in districts like Clay that one person should not be allowed to assert viewpoint censorship over an entire district and abuse such a policy knowing the censorship desired is obtained by overwhelming the system. 
• Since this bill will likely go unfunded just like its predecessor HB1467, we suggest limiting each challenger to two free objections and then requiring a fee for each challenge thereafter. 
  • This would ensure more community members must be involved in the free challenge process and protect a community from a single viewpoint. 
  • Additionally, it will help the district recoup some of the lost funding that is being diverted from our students to this effort largely driven by a small portion of the community (many times without students enrolled in the district).
• The requirement of a policy that allows parents to set individual restrictions on their students is the only portion of this bill that promotes the rights of the individual, and having such a policy would negate the need for all the other provisions in this bill that expand government censorship in this state. 
  • A robust school library, run by a professional librarian, can be the great equalizer for K12 education. It is the most accessible tool that empowers students to learn beyond the limits of the classroom and life at home. 
  • It must serve every student, and a policy that invites parent and educator collaboration to tailor the offerings to each child is worthy of consideration.
  • Citrus County is a cautionary tale of parental opt-in policy. Parents assume all resources located within the school will be available to their students during school hours. A library opt-in policy will result in thousands of students being unable to access the library because the initial denial of services goes against the goals of an educational institute.  

HB1463/SB1620

The issues within HB1463 and SB1620 are vast. Generally speaking, these bills encroach on our individual rights as parents and citizens and negate the role of our local elected officials. Most of the provisions are reckless and broadly worded. 

Do we support digital device use in schools being limited to class instruction, emergency needs, and necessary communication with home? Yes.

Do parents recognize that the amount of time our minors spend on digital devices is unhealthy, and appreciate efforts to reduce the amount of instruction on digital devices in the traditional school setting? Yes.

Do parents want the ability to protect their children from having their image shared on social media without their permission? Yes.

Are parents concerned about the children accessing books with particular subject matter before they are ready? Yes.

While this legislation seeks to address those concerns, it does so in a way that assumes all parents in all communities desire the same amount of restriction: warning labels for adults to read before purchasing digital devices, restricting students and parents from sharing images taken during school hours on social media, limiting instruction on electronic devices through 8th grade causing teens to be ill-prepared for the expectations in high school and life. Most abhorrent is the removal of the careful consideration before government censorship is allowed (i.e. the current US court standard of the Miller Test). The changes to the definition of "harmful to minors" would bar an adolescent from attending a PG-13 movie with their parents or reading most young adult novels due to the restriction of "sexual excitement" and the even broader "any other sexual act" which in some areas of the world can include a woman showing her hair or bare shoulders. Most egregious, this bill gives the state the authority to come into a school district and "seize" books the community and local officials have deemed appropriate for the school environment.

There are a number of issues being overlooked with the plain reading of this bill. Here are our top concerns:

• The matter-of-fact statement that “excessive use of digital media negatively impacts brain development in children so significantly that the cognitive and mental health ramifications faced by children have manifested into a public health crisis” could lead to all FLVS options being pulled as an option for the students that excel in this type of program.
• There are new training requirements and certifications assigned in this bill to support early detection efforts; however, it doesn’t appear this bill will receive the needed funding to fulfill these requirements.
  • The current surveys used to detect things like pornography addiction have been deemed “inappropriate” and it would be impossible to inquire about early signs and symptoms without providing descriptions of sexual excitement and conduct
• The warning label on digital devices sold in the state of Florida could increase cost to the consumer and limit online retailers. 
  • Digital devices have become a necessary tool to participate effectively and successfully in society. Advising against a purchase means the government is asking the consumer to weigh the hazards of participating in society against the potential addiction risks. 
  • The label assumes people are making an uninformed choice to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars. It’s insulting. 
• The “substantial portion” definition of 33.3% or more of online content meeting the qualifications of “harmful to minors” seems like a standard that should apply across all media.
• “This section does not apply to any bona fide news or public interest broadcast, website video, report, or event and may not be construed to affect the rights of any news-gathering organizations.”
  • This provision recognizes that there are times when sensitive or controversial information is shared because the overall benefit usurps the threat of a minor being able to access the same information
• The additions to the “harmful to minors” definition are very broad - especially when considering “characterization” and “description” are tied to "but not limited to" and "any other sexual act." 
  • There are religious sects that believe that a woman exposing her hair or bare arms is a sexual act. A more local and non anecdotal example is a Christian K12 school in Orange County FL that believes holding hands is a sexual act. 
  • If you want to avoid this going too far, because it can and will (re: Duval & Clay), you cannot remove the Miller Test. 
    • A general consensus of the local community must be considered as well as the intention of the work.
    • Removing the Miller Test would leave all media (including religious texts, classic literature, art, movies, advertisements) open to this definition. 
      • Movies/tv with a baby's bare bottom would be subjected to a MA rating. 
      • Billboards used to sell perfume with a sexy couple in a sweaty embrace (sexual excitement) would meet this definition.
      • Passages from the Bible that contain references to incest, rape, and bestiality would make the book inaccessible to people under the age of 18 without provisions that would specifically protect this book because it happens to be mentioned in Florida standards.
• “A person may not knowingly sell, rent, give, send, show, display, or loan to a minor…”
  • People do not have the ability to verify age on social media. Most social media platforms allow people over the age of 13 to participate. This would mean that all interactions with strangers on these platforms must assume the other person is a minor.
  • All portions of the human body can be considered sexually exciting based on different standards
  • Without the Miller Test’s inclusion in the “harmful to minors” definition, this provision is essentially the same qualifiers as the new definition negating the need for “and which is harmful to minors.”
  • The exception would only protect any media recognized by the state as being acceptable. 
    • This exception can only be determined by someone at the State level using the provisions within the Miller Test (acceptable by community standards, intent other than arousal, and consideration of the overall value of the work). 
    • This should give us all pause as a state that boasts freedom from government oversight. The only materials deemed acceptable for minors would be ones the state deems acceptable. 
    • The ONLY religious text called out specifically in statute is the Bible. Does this mean the Bible is the only religious text given a "pass" to be accessible to minors?
• The reduction in traditional instruction time allowed on digital devices is a consistent number throughout K8 (no more than 10%)
  • Currently, it is a gradual incline of the amount of instructional time dedicated to electronic format (in preparation for high school). 
    • The jump from third to fourth grade is already an adjustment for kids, as is the jump that occurs between fifth and sixth. 
    • The impact in ninth grade, if the students go all K8 at 10% electronic workload, will have all students way behind in ability. It MUST be incremental. 
  • Most textbooks are digital by the time the students reach middle school. There must be funding in this bill to make this shift.
• A plain reading of the internet safety clause means that a student (and their parents) could not post a picture of themselves (their student) taken during school hours on social media, even if posted after hours. 
  • Parents go to school performances during the day and post on social media all the time. What will be the ramifications from doing that?
  • FLDOE social media has many students pictured on it at different school events.
  • Prohibiting the use of communication devices during school hours along with this limitation on social media would render a student media’s job impossible. Student journalists would not be able to use their phones for interviews or cover events during the school day.
  • How will this be managed when there are field trips during school hours, but not on school property with parent chaperones?
• Requiring the discontinuation of materials for “any grade level or age group” assumes that all community needs and what is appropriate for the age group is the same throughout the district. 
  • In very large districts with rural and urban settings, socioeconomic trends and other factors within the smaller community can cause variations in what is considered age appropriate. 
• Removal of the 30-day objection period for school board adopted materials could cause a delay in needed materials for our students. 
  • If, as this bill also seeks to do, more textbooks are printed versus digital, there has to be a threshold for the length of time a person can contest a textbook to allow for timely ordering and delivery of materials.
• Requiring the approval of all websites used by students for instructional purposes could limit access to the most up-to-date resource sites. 
  • You cannot teach media literacy unless you allow students the ability to see both good and bad examples of trustworthy media.
  • Asking a particular set of reviewers to approve the internet websites available as resources to our students will greatly impact the district’s ability to teach media literacy.
• The "free" state is encouraging state officials coming into a local municipality to "seize" books the state - not the local community - deem "harmful to minors"
  • Many books the Governor has labeled as harmful and “pornography” have gone through local committee reviews and have been deemed appropriate for library shelves, for students of a certain age (Gender Queer, This Book is Gay, and Flamer)

HB 999/SB 266

HB 999 limits the educational choices adult students can make in the state of Florida. The proposed benefit of increased oversight of how taxpayer dollars are invested in education will be overshadowed by the negative and unsupportive learning environment these provisions will create. Most concerning is the assumption that diversity, equity, and inclusion are bad things. By definition this bill asks its state universities to ignore monoculturalism among its professors and programs along with inequitable and exclusionary policies and practices. This type of environment combined with the limitations placed on specific topics will discourage talented professors and students from working and seeking higher education in Florida.

There are a number of issues being overlooked with the plain reading of this bill. Here are our top concerns:

• Adults are paying money for a "high quality" education - not just to compete in Florida, but to compete in the country and globally.
• In a constitutional republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters.
  • The course offerings should be based on demand, not limited by the ideological beliefs of the political party in power
• Taxpayer funds will be allocated by appointed (not elected) members, and without requiring the consideration of the concerns of its investors.
  • Endowments are given by individual donors and groups to support a specific program within a college and university. Those funds must be spent as intended to foster trust and further financial support.
• If they are not to utilize DEI statements during the hiring process, then by definition this bill asks its state universities to ignore monoculturalism among its professors along with inequitable and exclusionary hiring practices. This can and will lead to discriminatory hiring practices.
• Considering these are political appointees and not an elected Board of Trustees, this change would allow the hiring and firing of professors to be based on the political whims of leadership in the moment. 
  • This threat will highly influence the ability of our professors to "model civic discourse that recognizes the importance of viewpoint diversity."
• The restrictions on DEI considerations within programs and campus activities makes it sound like the government is expecting schools to only support programs and campus activities that practice exclusion. 
  • How do we ensure that a college/university does not violate the anti-discrimination language in HB7, if we don't ensure the programs and campus activities are fairly offered to all?
• Other provisions in this bill call for the removal of diverse viewpoints, and yet here is a call to protect and acknowledge the importance of viewpoint diversity in civic discourse.
• If individuals want to speak about how they have benefited from inclusive or equitable policies, there are provisions in this bill that would restrict their ability to share their full story.
• Suppression of the stories that tell the lived experiences of a particular race over this country's shared history is exactly what provisions in this bill seek to do.
• If courses cannot include a curriculum that teaches identity politics, then…
  • How can a curriculum "model civic discourse that recognizes the importance of viewpoint diversity"?
  • Republican and Democratic parties are political identities in this country. How will you teach what the parties have stood for throughout history and how viewpoints have shifted over time?
• This bill diminishes the freedom of speech and academic freedom that our Founders believed was crucial to protecting our new nation.

HB1223/SB1320

HB1223 and SB1320 seek to expand the Parental Rights in Education Act to K8 without fixing the language that has allowed districts to discriminately limit access to books about LGBTQ+ people. Since the passing of HB1557 we have collected evidence via public records requests from the following districts to prove that only picture books featuring LGBTQ+ characters have been removed from K3 access: Duval, Palm Beach, Manatee, Seminole, Lake, Clay, Escambia, St. Johns, Pinellas, St. Lucie, Broward, Highlands, Okaloosa, Indian River, and Bay. In some cases the districts have allowed books with secondary LGBTQ+ characters to remain, but there is no consistency in that decision making process.  A district has yet to question a book about how mommy and daddy got married, or about boys who dance ballet, or books about girls that object to wearing pink. The undefined terms of "classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity" have been understood to mean LGBTQ+ topics.

These bills also limit a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of their child by not allowing for a child’s accepted pronouns to be used while at school. The sex of a person - even with the use of this awful definition - is not an outward expression. Forcing the use of pronouns that correspond to a person’s reproductive function at birth violates individual freedom of expression and privacy rights. Not to mention, it would be impossible to enforce this without expecting every employee and contractor to know what is not just written on a birth certificate, but certified through inspection of one's reproductive functionality. Educators are supposed to honor parental rights. Asking a student how they prefer to be referenced in class is a question many parents would want asked of their child to ensure the classroom is a supportive environment and the teacher is interested in protecting their student's mental health.

There are a number of issues being overlooked with the plain reading of this bill. Here are our top concerns:

• Intersex people do exist, and birth defects can and have accounted for reproductive organs to not be "functional" as one would expect for either male or female classification.
  • Fine's bill recognizes that some people are not born specifically male or female based on reproductive organs, and can access the medical treatments necessary to assign a sex.
• Sex and gender identity are not the same thing. 
  • Look to other languages that prescribe masculine and feminine pronouns to inanimate objects. 
  • Sex does not dictate one's gender identity. The sex of a person - even with the use of this definition - is not an outward expression. 
  • The sex of a person based on reproductive function does not make it obvious to all what pronouns should be used.
• An individual's parental rights cannot be diminished by the government- this includes the ability to direct the education, upbringing, and decisions related to medical care and treatment. This bill would honor the parental rights of a few, and disregard the parental rights of others based on ideological principles and one's acceptance of gender identity and sex being two different things.
  • Educators are supposed to honor parental rights. Asking a student how they prefer to be referenced in class is a question many parents would want asked of their child to ensure the classroom is a supportive environment and the teacher is interested in protecting every student's mental health.
• Promoting the use of pronouns that correspond to a person’s reproductive function at birth instead of one’s gender identity violates individual freedom of expression and privacy rights.
  • It would be impossible to enforce this without expecting every employee and contractor to know what is not just written on a birth certificate, but certified through inspection of one's reproductive makeup.
• If no student can be asked what his or her preferred pronouns are, then this provision could also apply to students, particularly student journalists, asking fellow students what their preferred pronouns are during an interview. This conflicts with all national journalistic ethics standards as well as many student publication policies.
• Reproduction and sexual health is currently a standard in grades 6-8, but this language would make it impossible to address reproduction and STD prevention.
• The ONLY picture books being removed from schools have been books that include LGBTQ+ characters. 
  • A district has yet to remove picture books about it being ok to both be a boy and want to take dance lessons, or about being a girl and not liking princesses and the color pink. 
  • Put the proper provisions in place on the current law to stop this discrimination before expanding it to include more grades.
• In order for any one provision in this bill to succeed, the others must be held as true.