This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed in a number of cases that the First Amendment protects even material that people find offensive.
Now a lower court judge in Colorado has expanded that ruling, further ordering that that requires a school district to provide offensive material to children.
Demanding that the Elizabeth School District use her judgment regarding materials board members and others determined should not be placed within ready access of children, Charlotte Sweeney, appointed by Joe Biden, "has sided with far-left activists over concerned parents, forcing the Elizabeth School District to return 19 books – including those pushing graphic sexual content and radical ideologies – to school library shelves," according to the Gateway Pundit.
The report described Sweeney as trampling on parental rights by forcing "explicit books" back into the library for any child to access.
Some of the publications include "The Hate U Give," "The Bluest Eye," "The Kite Runner," "#Pride: Championing LGBTQ Rights," "Melissa," "Thirteen Reasons Why" and more.
The board had removed the books from libraries because of concerns over "graphic violence, racism, and discrimination, depictions of self-harm or mental illness, and sexual content," the report said.
The NAACP joined the Authors Guild and some activist students and parents who claimed censorship and sued.
Sweeney found withholding offensive, possibly even dangerous or harmful, ideas from children violated the First Amendment.
She claimed, "Plaintiffs have shown that the district removed the 19 books based on the authors' and books' content and viewpoints on issues such as race, sexual orientation, gender identity, LGBTQ content, and to promote the board's self-proclaimed 'conservative values.'"
Sweeney claimed that the district's defense of a desire to protect children from inappropriate material was "pretextual."
Her decision was to deliver to those promoting the offending material, including the authors who stand to profit financially from her decision, a preliminary injunction ordering the school to provide the offending materials once again to children.
Sweeney claimed, "There simply is no reason to believe that the books were removed because of vulgarity, age-inappropriateness, or for legitimate pedagogical concerns."
