Case Overview
You see these comic book images? They come from a comic book that is “recommended” for 14-17 year olds. Our client, Dan Kleinman, thinks t
hat if you want minors to have access to that, you just might have a problem.
He calls it “grooming behavior.”
What would you call it if someone gave that to your child? What if they didn’t technically hand it to your child, but just wanted to make it available to your child? What if they were just a little clever about it?
What would you do?
What would you think?
What would you say?
What would you at least want to be free to say?
Amanda Jones, a Louisiana librarian, gained national notoriety for advocating that minors should have
access to books like that. Why? Her position is that this book should be in your public library. She has not equally advocated for Hustler Magazine nor The Turner Diaries to be available, at least not that we have been able to find.
Why books like this?
Everyone has an opinion. You make up your own mind about that.
Is this appropriate for minors? More importantly, do you think you should be free to insult someone who says that it is?
As First Amendment advocates, we do not think that this book should be banned. You should be able to buy it. If you want to give it to your child, that’s between you and your child. But we also believe that Mr. Kleinman has the right to express his critical opinion of anyone who advocates for this kind of thing to be accessible to children.
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
“[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”
Perhaps today’s “fighting faith” is that it is sick to think a child should have a comic book about stuffing butt plugs up their rectums, or that consuming porn is a “sugary treat.” And the theory of our Constitution says that you should be able to write books like this, publish books like this, and read books like this. But just as equally, our Constitution says that you should be able to criticize anyone who thinks that it is just fine, if not wonderful, to teach children how to use a butt plug or give a fellatio.
For expressing such criticism, Jones sued Kleinman for defamation and false light, with the backing of the American Library Association. Funny… the ALA says a lot about censorship, but when it comes to criticism of their agenda, dissent will not be tolerated.
Procedurally, the case has been interesting. Jones sued Kleinman in New Jersey and then a few hours later in Louisiana. We moved to dismiss the Louisiana case, as it was filed second, and Louisiana does not have as robust of an Anti-SLAPP law as New Jersey. We prevailed on that, with the Louisiana Court tossing out the claim, and New Jersey retaining it (despite Jones’ attempt to get her own case in New Jersey dismissed).
With the case finally planted in New Jersey, Kleinman filed an Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case, which is currently pending.
A book recommended for minors suggests consuming porn as a “sugary treat.” Would you like to lose the freedom to express your opinion about this?
