"Local news worth reading" — The New York Times
SUBSCRIBE
The independent voice for West Orange County news
Two bills championed by State Rep. Doug Bankson, which purport to safeguard children from obscenity and lewdness, have reached the House floor.
House Bill 1119, known as the Materials Harmful to Minors bill, would amend Florida Statute Section 1006.28. It’s scheduled to be heard Wednesday in the full House where representatives can add amendments. An identical bill was introduced Jan. 22 in the Senate, but has yet to be heard in any of its committees.
HB 1119 aims to remove books and other materials from school libraries that depict “nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement” that “predominantly appeals to prurient, shameful, or morbid interest” and is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole.”
Parents and school district residents would be able to object to materials, and school districts would have to remove them within five days pending review. In evaluating a book’s appropriateness, the bill would not allow school districts to consider a work’s “literary, artistic, political or scientific value,” which is the standard established in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court, for determining whether works as a whole are obscene. Health education materials would be exempted.
Bankson, a Republican who represents Winter Garden and Apopka, introduced similar legislation in last year’s session that overwhelmingly passed the Republican-dominated House, but died in the Senate Rules Committee.
During the Education & Employment Committee’s Jan. 27 hearing, Bankson stated that parents who have children in public schools should control any material that could be harmful to the child.
“Contrary to inaccurate claims and misinformation that may be circulating, nothing in this legislation addresses banning classical literature or sexual orientation, gender identity, political views, religious issues, vulgarity or bad language, violence or gore,” he said. “This bill solely addresses materials in public schools or school libraries for children that contain obscenity or, in more common terms, blatant pornographic and sexually explicit content.”
He added that parents aren’t prohibited from seeking International Baccalaureate (IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) materials so their children can continue in higher education.
During the hearing, Democratic Rep. Yvonne Hayes Hinson of Gainesville asked Bankson how HB 1119 differs from the bill he introduced last session.
“Actually, this is that same bill,” said Bankson. “It’s just simply making sure that there’s a clarity in the bill.”
He explained that, in a prior committee hearing, they addressed “questions of concern,” such as whether parents could access the information required for IB or AP courses students would need for their education. “So this clarifies that, but that was already covered in this bill.”
Hinson followed up with a concern that this may be another book ban.
Bankson insisted the bill was not a book ban.
“This isn’t a book ban. We haven’t banned books” he maintained, adding that the bill just curbs access to material for adults that’s “harmful to minors.”
“Another clarification in our last committee: this does not remove any of these books from public libraries, from the ability for parents who deem this for their children as appropriate for them as a parent,” he said. “We’re not trying to take away parents’ rights or force one view upon another.”
Responding to another concern, Bankson later said his bill would not remove a biology textbook or artistic work that doesn’t depict the human body in a “prurient manner,” which is “characterized by an inordinate interest in sex or arousing or appealing to an inordinate interest in sex,” he explained, citing the definition listed in The American Heritage Dictionary.
Rep. Rita Harris asked Bankson if Forever by Judy Blume and The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky — which address teenage sexuality — “are not accessible to students in public school libraries, isn’t that effectively banning them?”
Bankson said it would not, for the same reason that Playboy magazine isn’t allowed in schools.
He added that this isn’t a “left or right issue,” but a right-or-wrong one involving children and the use of a standard that is “appropriate for their sensitivities and their maturity level.”
Blume and Chbosky’s novels are in the YA fiction or young adult fiction category, which is marketed to readers 12 to 18, while Playboy is marketed for mature adults who are 18 and older.
Several organizations that support the right to read, free expression and the First Amendment came out hard against the bill.
Kara Gross, interim political director of ACLU of Florida, called the current proposal “an overly broad censorship bill that raises serious First Amendment concerns,” making it easier to ban books.
“Under existing law, determinations about whether material is harmful to minors must consider whether the work, taken as a whole, has serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. This bill ignores Supreme Court precedent and long-established constitutional standards, opening the door to sweeping book bans that target protected speech,” she said.
LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Equality Florida, which opposes the measure, described it as a “book ban expansion bill” that “would supercharge book banning and censorship in Florida’s K-12 schools by discarding a long-standing constitutional standard to make it easier to challenge and remove educational materials.” It said the bill would disproportionately censor and target LGBTQ+ books and result in children being “less informed, less prepared, and less able to think critically.”
PEN America, which advocates free expression worldwide, said Florida is already the “number one book-banning state” and this bill, along with the companion Senate Bill 1692, and other legislation, would drive the state’s book-banning crisis to unimaginable heights.”
Another bill headed to the House floor for consideration is HB 1525, which would repeal Florida Statute Section 800.02 and create a new statute that specifically targets indecent exposure near minors. Bankson introduced the bill with Clermont Republican Rep. Taylor Yarkosky, and it’s co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Johanna López of Orlando.
The House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the measure on Feb. 3, with 17 votes, including all six Democratic committee members.
Under a new Section 800.035, it would be a third-degree felony for adults to intentionally expose their genitals or perform sex acts while observing a child under 16 “for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification with zero regard whether that child witnessed it or not,” said Yarkosky during the Feb. 3 Judiciary Committee hearing.
Breastfeeding mothers and people who are “merely nude in a place provided or set apart for that purpose” would be exempt.
There was no public testimony nor any debate during the hearing.
A House analysis said the bill would have an “indeterminate” effect on the number of people being jailed as the creation of a new felony offense could result in more people being jailed under the new law while the retirement of a misdemeanor offense could result in fewer people being jailed.
Another measure currently winding its way through the House is HB 1311. The bill ratifies rules promulgated by the Department of Financial Services and the Office of Financial Regulation so that a 2025 law recognizing qualifying gold and silver coins as legal tender in the state can take effect. The bill primarily addresses regulatory requirements for custodians, financial institutions, and money service businesses that handle these coins.
Bankson introduced HB 1311 on Jan. 8, and the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee unanimously approved it on Jan. 29. It’s now being considered by the Commerce Committee, although no hearing on it has been scheduled yet.
