SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Copies of banned books from various states and school systems from around the county are seen during a press conference by U.S. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) at the U.S. Capitol on March 24, 2023 in Washington, D.C.
Texas bookstores, national trade associations, and other critics of book bans celebrated on Wednesday after a panel from an ultraconservative U.S. appeals court affirmed a decision to temporarily block part of a new state law intended to restrict what’s allowed in public school libraries.
House Bill 900, or the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, was signed last June by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. This case focuses on the section of the law requiring book vendors that sell to schools to submit ratings about sexual content to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and provide annual updates.
The contested law requires booksellers to label all material as “sexually explicit,” “sexually relevant,” or “no rating.” Sexually explicit books must be removed from school library shelves and cannot be sold to districts, while sexually relevant material cannot be checked out without parental consent. The TEA can make changes to vendors’ ratings.
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas.”
A pair of bookstores—Houston’s Blue Willow and BookPeople in Austin—joined with the Association of American Publishers, American Booksellers Association, Authors Guild, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to challenge the law, arguing that it violates free speech rights and would subject plaintiffs to “irreparable personal and economic injury.”
Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, an appointee of GOP former President Donald Trump, temporarily blocked the book-rating policy in September. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed in a Wednesday opinion penned by Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett.
“The question presented is narrow: Are plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes,” wrote Willett, joined by Judges Jacques Wiener and Dana Douglas, appointees of former President George H.W. Bush and President Joe Biden, respectively.
While welcoming that the opinion does not apply to newly adopted standards for school library collection development, Texas Rep. Jared Patterson (R-106), who authored H.B. 900, expressed disappointment with the decision and urged Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unless Paxton appeals to the high court, the case will return to the district level for full arguments. While there is still a fight ahead, plaintiffs in the case and other critics of the law still celebrated on Wednesday.
“We are grateful for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisive action in striking down this unconstitutional law,” the plaintiffs said in joint a statement. “With this historic decision the court has moved decisively to ensure the constitutionally protected speech of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers, and prevent the state government from unlawfully compelling speech on the part of private citizens.”
“The court’s decision also shields Texas businesses from the imposition of impossibly onerous conditions, protects the basic constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, and lets Texas parents make decisions for their own children without government interference or control,” they added. “This is a good day for bookstores, readers, and free expression.”
As the Austin-American Statesman reported:
The decision was great news for Charley Rejsek, CEO of BookPeople.
“They recognized that this law as it’s written would force us to divert time and effort away from our regular business,” Rejsek said. “This was not good for any business.”
Rejsek added that rating books by the April 1 deadline “was completely impossible to do.”
Texas Republicans are among GOP policymakers across the country who have embraced right-wing efforts to ban books at the state and local levels in recent years, initiatives that have often focused on content related to sex, gender identity, and race.
During the 2022-23 school year, PEN America tracked 3,362 instances of book bans in U.S. public school classrooms and libraries cutting off students from 1,557 unique titles. The group noted that this represented a significant increase from figures the previous year and targeted authors were “most frequently female, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ individuals.”
Texas Freedom Network organizing director Seneca Savoie said in a statement Wednesday that “the courts should exist to protect and defend the rights of everyone in our communities, including our children. We applaud the 5th Circuit for upholding Judge Albright’s initial ruling, rather than aiding our state’s leaders in their endless culture wars and attacks on LGBTQIA+ Texans and our basic freedoms.”
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas,” Savoie added. “While we were deeply disheartened that the 5th Circuit previously allowed this unconstitutional law to go into effect knowing that it violates the rights of Texas kids and their families, justice has finally been served.”
As Willett noted in the Wednesday opinion, previously, “a different panel of this court granted the administrative stay.”
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I’ve ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That’s why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we’ve ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here’s the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That’s not just some fundraising cliche. It’s the absolute and literal truth. We don’t accept corporate advertising and never will. We don’t have a paywall because we don’t think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Texas bookstores, national trade associations, and other critics of book bans celebrated on Wednesday after a panel from an ultraconservative U.S. appeals court affirmed a decision to temporarily block part of a new state law intended to restrict what’s allowed in public school libraries.
House Bill 900, or the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, was signed last June by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. This case focuses on the section of the law requiring book vendors that sell to schools to submit ratings about sexual content to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and provide annual updates.
The contested law requires booksellers to label all material as “sexually explicit,” “sexually relevant,” or “no rating.” Sexually explicit books must be removed from school library shelves and cannot be sold to districts, while sexually relevant material cannot be checked out without parental consent. The TEA can make changes to vendors’ ratings.
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas.”
A pair of bookstores—Houston’s Blue Willow and BookPeople in Austin—joined with the Association of American Publishers, American Booksellers Association, Authors Guild, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to challenge the law, arguing that it violates free speech rights and would subject plaintiffs to “irreparable personal and economic injury.”
Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, an appointee of GOP former President Donald Trump, temporarily blocked the book-rating policy in September. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed in a Wednesday opinion penned by Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett.
“The question presented is narrow: Are plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes,” wrote Willett, joined by Judges Jacques Wiener and Dana Douglas, appointees of former President George H.W. Bush and President Joe Biden, respectively.
While welcoming that the opinion does not apply to newly adopted standards for school library collection development, Texas Rep. Jared Patterson (R-106), who authored H.B. 900, expressed disappointment with the decision and urged Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unless Paxton appeals to the high court, the case will return to the district level for full arguments. While there is still a fight ahead, plaintiffs in the case and other critics of the law still celebrated on Wednesday.
“We are grateful for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisive action in striking down this unconstitutional law,” the plaintiffs said in joint a statement. “With this historic decision the court has moved decisively to ensure the constitutionally protected speech of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers, and prevent the state government from unlawfully compelling speech on the part of private citizens.”
“The court’s decision also shields Texas businesses from the imposition of impossibly onerous conditions, protects the basic constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, and lets Texas parents make decisions for their own children without government interference or control,” they added. “This is a good day for bookstores, readers, and free expression.”
As the Austin-American Statesman reported:
The decision was great news for Charley Rejsek, CEO of BookPeople.
“They recognized that this law as it’s written would force us to divert time and effort away from our regular business,” Rejsek said. “This was not good for any business.”
Rejsek added that rating books by the April 1 deadline “was completely impossible to do.”
Texas Republicans are among GOP policymakers across the country who have embraced right-wing efforts to ban books at the state and local levels in recent years, initiatives that have often focused on content related to sex, gender identity, and race.
During the 2022-23 school year, PEN America tracked 3,362 instances of book bans in U.S. public school classrooms and libraries cutting off students from 1,557 unique titles. The group noted that this represented a significant increase from figures the previous year and targeted authors were “most frequently female, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ individuals.”
Texas Freedom Network organizing director Seneca Savoie said in a statement Wednesday that “the courts should exist to protect and defend the rights of everyone in our communities, including our children. We applaud the 5th Circuit for upholding Judge Albright’s initial ruling, rather than aiding our state’s leaders in their endless culture wars and attacks on LGBTQIA+ Texans and our basic freedoms.”
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas,” Savoie added. “While we were deeply disheartened that the 5th Circuit previously allowed this unconstitutional law to go into effect knowing that it violates the rights of Texas kids and their families, justice has finally been served.”
As Willett noted in the Wednesday opinion, previously, “a different panel of this court granted the administrative stay.”
Texas bookstores, national trade associations, and other critics of book bans celebrated on Wednesday after a panel from an ultraconservative U.S. appeals court affirmed a decision to temporarily block part of a new state law intended to restrict what’s allowed in public school libraries.
House Bill 900, or the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, was signed last June by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. This case focuses on the section of the law requiring book vendors that sell to schools to submit ratings about sexual content to the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and provide annual updates.
The contested law requires booksellers to label all material as “sexually explicit,” “sexually relevant,” or “no rating.” Sexually explicit books must be removed from school library shelves and cannot be sold to districts, while sexually relevant material cannot be checked out without parental consent. The TEA can make changes to vendors’ ratings.
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas.”
A pair of bookstores—Houston’s Blue Willow and BookPeople in Austin—joined with the Association of American Publishers, American Booksellers Association, Authors Guild, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund to challenge the law, arguing that it violates free speech rights and would subject plaintiffs to “irreparable personal and economic injury.”
Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, an appointee of GOP former President Donald Trump, temporarily blocked the book-rating policy in September. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel unanimously agreed in a Wednesday opinion penned by Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett.
“The question presented is narrow: Are plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that READER violates their First Amendment rights? Controlling precedent suggests the answer is yes,” wrote Willett, joined by Judges Jacques Wiener and Dana Douglas, appointees of former President George H.W. Bush and President Joe Biden, respectively.
While welcoming that the opinion does not apply to newly adopted standards for school library collection development, Texas Rep. Jared Patterson (R-106), who authored H.B. 900, expressed disappointment with the decision and urged Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Unless Paxton appeals to the high court, the case will return to the district level for full arguments. While there is still a fight ahead, plaintiffs in the case and other critics of the law still celebrated on Wednesday.
“We are grateful for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisive action in striking down this unconstitutional law,” the plaintiffs said in joint a statement. “With this historic decision the court has moved decisively to ensure the constitutionally protected speech of authors, booksellers, publishers, and readers, and prevent the state government from unlawfully compelling speech on the part of private citizens.”
“The court’s decision also shields Texas businesses from the imposition of impossibly onerous conditions, protects the basic constitutional rights of the plaintiffs, and lets Texas parents make decisions for their own children without government interference or control,” they added. “This is a good day for bookstores, readers, and free expression.”
As the Austin-American Statesman reported:
The decision was great news for Charley Rejsek, CEO of BookPeople.
“They recognized that this law as it’s written would force us to divert time and effort away from our regular business,” Rejsek said. “This was not good for any business.”
Rejsek added that rating books by the April 1 deadline “was completely impossible to do.”
Texas Republicans are among GOP policymakers across the country who have embraced right-wing efforts to ban books at the state and local levels in recent years, initiatives that have often focused on content related to sex, gender identity, and race.
During the 2022-23 school year, PEN America tracked 3,362 instances of book bans in U.S. public school classrooms and libraries cutting off students from 1,557 unique titles. The group noted that this represented a significant increase from figures the previous year and targeted authors were “most frequently female, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ individuals.”
Texas Freedom Network organizing director Seneca Savoie said in a statement Wednesday that “the courts should exist to protect and defend the rights of everyone in our communities, including our children. We applaud the 5th Circuit for upholding Judge Albright’s initial ruling, rather than aiding our state’s leaders in their endless culture wars and attacks on LGBTQIA+ Texans and our basic freedoms.”
“Our kids deserve the freedom to read, and their local schools and libraries are no place for censorious adults to push their religious and political agendas,” Savoie added. “While we were deeply disheartened that the 5th Circuit previously allowed this unconstitutional law to go into effect knowing that it violates the rights of Texas kids and their families, justice has finally been served.”
As Willett noted in the Wednesday opinion, previously, “a different panel of this court granted the administrative stay.”
President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to silence his critics Thursday, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that outlets that give him "bad press" may have their broadcast licenses taken away.
The threat came just one day after his Federal Communications Commission (FCC) director, Brendan Carr, successfully pressured ABC into pulling Jimmy Kimmel's show from the air by threatening the broadcast licenses of its affiliates over a comment the comedian made about the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me," Trump told the press gaggle. "I get 97% negative, and yet I won it easily. I won all seven swing states, popular vote, I won everything. And they're 97% against, they give me wholly bad publicity... I mean, they're getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away."
"When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do," the president continued. "If you go back, I guess they haven’t had a conservative on in years or something, somebody said, but when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
He said that the decision would be left up to Carr, who has threatened to take away licenses from networks that air what he called "distorted" content.
It is unclear where Trump's statistic that networks have been "97% against" him originates, nor the claim that mainstream news networks "haven't had a conservative on in years."
But even if it were true, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez says "the FCC doesn't have the authority, the ability, or the constitutional right to revoke a license because of content."
In comments made to Axios Thursday, Gomez—the lone Democrat on the five-member panel—said that the Trump administration was "weaponizing its licensing authority in order to bring broadcasters to heel," as part of a "campaign of censorship and control."
National news networks like ABC, CBS, and NBC do not have broadcasting licenses approved by the FCC, nor do cable networks like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. The licenses threatened by Carr are for local affiliates, which—despite having the branding of the big networks—are owned by less well-known companies like Nexstar Media Group and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, both of which pushed in favor of ABC's decision to ax Kimmel.
Gomez said that with Trump's intimidation of broadcasters, the "threat is the point."
"It is a very hard standard to meet to revoke a license, which is why it's so rarely done, but broadcast license to the broadcasters are extremely valuable," she said. "And so they don't want to be dragged before the FCC either in order to answer to an enforcement complaint of some kind or under the threat of possible revocation."
Democratic lawmakers are vowing to investigate the Trump administration's pressure campaign that may have led to ABC deciding to indefinitely suspend late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that he filed a motion to subpoena Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr one day after he publicly warned ABC of negative consequences if the network kept Kimmel on the air.
"Enough of Congress sleepwalking while [President Donald] Trump and [Vice President JD] Vance shred the First Amendment and Constitution," Khanna declared. "It is time for Congress to stand up for Article I."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, also said on Thursday that he was opening an investigation into the potential financial aspects of Carr's pressure campaign on ABC, including the involvement of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which is the network's largest affiliate and is currently involved in merger talks that will need FCC approval.
"The Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into ABC, Sinclair, and the FCC," he said. "We will not be intimidated and we will defend the First Amendment."
Progressive politicians weren't the only ones launching an investigation into the Kimmel controversy, as legal organization Democracy Forward announced that it's filed a a Freedom of Information Act request for records after January 20, 2025 related to any FCC efforts “to use the agency’s licensing and enforcement powers to police and limit speech and influence what the public can watch and hear.”
After Hamas urged international support for the Global Sumud Flotilla, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Thursday signaled another potential attack by claiming on social media that the peaceful humanitarian mission to feed starving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip "is a jihadist initiative serving the terror group's agenda."
While Israel has not taken responsibility for recent drone attacks on the Global Sumud Flotilla—whose name means perseverance in Arabic—the incidents have raised eyebrows, given the country's history of attacking previous ones. The foreign ministers of 16 other nations on Tuesday implored Israel not to target this flotilla, which involves activists and political leaders from dozens of countries, including eight US veterans.
As Middle East Eye reported Thursday, Hamas—which Israel and the United States designate as a terrorist organization despite its governance of Gaza—called for escalating the global movement in solidarity with the strip "in rejection of the [Israeli] occupation's aggression, crimes of genocide, and starvation."
"We call for mobilizing all means to support the Global Sumud Flotilla heading to Gaza, and we warn the occupation against targeting it," Hamas also said in a statement, part of which was quoted in the Israeli ministry's post on X.
Responding on the same platform, journalist Séamus Malekafzali said: "Past comments from the Israeli government about the aid flotillas focused on celebrity vapidity or didn't mention their aim at all. Now, they're honing in on it being a supposedly terrorist instrument. Feels like the response is being set up to be more severe than in the past."
The post came two days after Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism published a report titled "Global Sumud Flotilla": A Humanitarian Cover With Documented Links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
As Brussels Signal reported Thursday:
Flotilla representatives and critics dismissed these claims as Israeli disinformation, echoing accusations leveled at prior missions, and called the report a case of "guilt by association," reliant on photos and unverified affiliations rather than evidence of operational control.
Organizers emphasised transparent crowdfunding for aid, with no terror funding, and framed the convoy as a grassroots response to aid blockages.
Earlier this week, a commission of independent experts at the United Nations concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, and an investigation from The New Humanitarian found that Israeli forces have killed nearly 3,000 Palestinian aid-seekers and wounded almost 20,000 others since October 2023. As of Thursday, the overall death toll has topped 65,000, though experts warn the true tally is likely far higher.