In a controversial legal filing related to a case challenging Florida’s anti-LGBTQ+ book ban, Attorney General Ashley Moody has drawn widespread attention by comparing a children’s book featuring a same-sex penguin couple to Nazi propaganda. The lawsuit, brought forth by authors and book publishers against the Escambia County School Board, alleges a violation of First Amendment free speech rights following the removal of the gay-inclusive children’s book, “And Tango Makes Three,” and other books from the school board’s shelves. Moody’s argument centers around public schools making “value-based judgments” on educational material accessibility, likening the exclusion of certain materials to the removal of Nazi propaganda, regardless of their educational value.
Controversial Legal Argument
Moody contends that the removal of “And Tango Makes Three” does not infringe upon free speech protection, asserting that public school systems have the authority to make viewpoint-based educational choices. Her legal brief cites two LGBTQ+-related Supreme Court cases, “Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston” (1995) and “303 Creative LLC. v. Elenis” (2023), which dealt with private business owners being compelled to express support for the LGBTQ+ community. However, the Florida case addresses whether the government can censor texts featuring LGBTQ+ and marginalized groups.
The Attorney General argues that forcing the government to endorse content it does not believe in would undermine the ability of elected representatives to decide what is taught in schools. She suggests that this would lead to the prioritization of litigants’ preferred materials over those that align with the government’s chosen educational mission, a characterization that the publishers and authors involved in the case vehemently dispute.
Publisher’s Right to Free Speech
Contrary to Moody’s assertions, the publishers and authors involved in the lawsuit are not seeking special treatment or substantial investment from schools to stock their books. Florida’s own school systems had these now-banned books on their library shelves until the anti-LGBTQ+ ban was implemented by the DeSantis administration. The resulting legal action stems from the removal of these titles, effectively impinging on the publishers’ constitutionally protected right to free speech.
Authoritarian Criticism
Critics of Moody’s legal stance argue that it promotes authoritarianism, as it positions schools as instruments for pushing the government’s message at the expense of parental rights and academic freedom. Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, emphasizes that allowing government speech to dictate library content restricts children’s exposure to ideas beyond what the government approves, ultimately undermining parental rights.
Additionally, a group of 23 constitutional scholars filed a separate brief in the case, asserting that the notion of school libraries serving as carriers of official government messaging contradicts their inherent nature and purpose. This debate over the role of public schools in shaping students’ access to diverse perspectives and ideas continues to be a contentious issue in Florida’s ongoing legal battle over LGBTQ+ literature.