Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Louisiana’s library boards of control now have much clearer guidance on what content they may regulate in parish libraries–though a future Court opinion may still be needed to fully confirm it. Now it’s up to those boards to act.

This week, the Court denied a hearing of Little v. Llano Co., ratifying the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. Llano County’s (TX) library commission had removed several books from circulation that it found unworthy of backing with public dollars, prompting a few aggrieved residents to sue on First Amendment grounds.

The Fifth Circuit made quick work of that ridiculous argument. It held that the amendment had no historical or intended basis for giving an individual the right to demand that taxpayer dollars be spent on–or that public servants’ judgment be bound to–placing a particular book into circulation. If people in a jurisdiction want a different outcome, they should elect officials who, in exercising their authority or delegating it, will choose the books they prefer.

It further scoffed at the notion that a duly authorized government official–or a panel of them–was “banning” books simply by deciding what would or would not be included in a library’s collection. The court noted that any such book would still be freely available from numerous nongovernmental sources, and in many cases from other government-supported ones as well.

This produced an incredible amount of intellect-free hyperventilation about the outcome, buttressed with prime examples of poor critical thinking abilities. One stated the decision was “undermining the First Amendment right to read unfettered by viewpoint-based censorship,” as if a government would now send monitors into public and private spaces to try to catch people reading books off a mythical banned list. Another committed the same error in saying, “The government has no place telling people what they can and cannot read.”

Obviously, the decision causes nothing of the sort and begs for a serious reality check to be visited upon such nimrods. A trip to Cuba, North Korea, or a few other regimes would give them some perspective–not only on what it’s like to live in a society where the government truly bans books, but also on the severe penalties imposed on anyone caught with an illegal text.

Even more pitiable is the extreme hypocrisy behind these bleats. Where were these guardians of the First Amendment when publishers were disowning their own products and sellers were refusing to distribute books challenging the zeitgeist of leftism, which is much more of a ban than the government deciding what public libraries should carry.

Regardless, with this authority now confirmed, Louisiana’s library boards of control may exercise it fully. State law already explicitly allows them to segregate books that children may read only with parental permission, but it doesn’t address other matters. Boards should begin an immediate review of their catalogs and determine which books do not merit the use of tax dollars for shelf space or staff time.

In some jurisdictions, there has already been plenty of controversy over enforcing the law on minors’ access in multiple locations. That may discourage some boards from undertaking such a review, but it shouldn’t–and if they balk, their governing bodies should appoint members who won’t. The review needs to be done.