Amid a battle erupting in Alabama over how the government manages library collections, a district judge in Florida on Monday slammed claims that library collections are “government speech.”

U.S. District Judge Kent Wetherell ruled Monday that a lawsuit against the Escambia County School District could proceed, rejecting Florida's attorney general's argument that libraries are government speech.

“…Given the fact that the traditional purpose of libraries is to provide information on a wide range of subjects and viewpoints, courts have considered how a reasonable person would view the contents of a school library (or any library for that matter). “The government is endorsing the views expressed in the books on library shelves,” Wetherell said in his ruling. “…the speech contained in library collections is very different from the speech contained in government-sponsored parades, prayers, art exhibits, and monuments on public property.”

Although this is just an opinion by a district judge who is not even in Alabama, Wetherell's comments counter arguments that have been used by Alabama residents seeking to move certain books from the minors section.

Laura Clark, president of the American Center for Law and Freedom, argued in an op-ed in 1819 News in December that removing books from libraries does not violate the First Amendment, specifically because they are “government speech.” . Although ACCL and 1819 News are both produced by the Alabama Policy Institute, API is not currently directly affiliated with either organization.

Laura Clark and her husband, Matt Clark, who resigned as ACCL president to serve as senior staff attorney to Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker, both argue that libraries are government speech.

“Books in public libraries are considered government speech.” United States v. American Library Assn., Inc. (2003)” Laura Clark wrote in an opinion piece. “In this case, the Supreme Court explained that the government has content-based discretion in determining what private speech, such as books, should be made available to the public. .”

The opinion specifically addresses whether the requirement to enable internet filters in public libraries interferes with the First Amendment rights of patrons; In order to fulfill its traditional mission, public libraries must have broad discretionary powers.” Decide what materials you want to provide to your patrons. ”

The opinion comes as book challengers seek to move or remove books they deem to be too sexually explicit or contain ideologies they disagree with, as a lawsuit continues in Florida. It seems that they are planning to use .

More than 2,000 books were removed from bookshelves in Escambia County schools, including five dictionaries.

This case is a notable one for Alabama, especially since it would also be decided in Alabama if it reached the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.