“It’s crushing our authors, and more than that, it’s crushing our students and patrons of our local libraries. I’d argue we haven’t seen anything like this in modern times.”
When it comes to the increased role of censorship in publishing, Dan Novack, doesn’t mince words—and he’d know. Novack serves as in-house counsel at Penguin Random House, the world’s largest publisher.
Noting that, historically, addressing these challenges was an issue that was unique to one town or one school board, the issue has become more widespread—frequently rising to the state level—making it so that citizens in towns, schools, and communities who want to read the books in question, simply can’t.
“Policy like this has a trickle-down effect,” he says. “When we deny children access to books they find spark in, they’ll be less inclined to read in general.”
It was this very concern that inspired Novack to join forces with Cornell’s First Amendment Clinic, to challenge a recent book ban statute in the state of Idaho. The law, HB 710, impacts classics and bestsellers such as Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and George R.R. Martin’s A Game of Thrones.
The Clinic is representing a coalition of publishers, authors, libraries, students, parents, and others who allege that the Idaho law restricts public and school libraries from making constitutionally protected works available to citizens in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
According to the Clinic’s complaint, the law expressly targets works that contain “sexual conduct“ or any “act of homosexuality,” which has been interpreted to include behaviors like handholding and hugging between people of the same gender. Additionally, many of the books that have been removed or relocated pursuant to the law are written by and for LGBTQ+ individuals.
“This is where I want to make my career, so working on a case like this has been a dream come true,” says Paul Janes ’26, a member of the Clinic since the summer of 2024.
“We’re learning with and from leading constitutional litigators, representing a global publishing house—but you quickly learn it’s about more than just the legal issues,” Janes adds. “There’s policy considerations; we’re trying to fit our litigation into a much bigger puzzle.”
On top of grappling with the substance of the legal arguments, it’s unlocked a new confidence that comes with working alongside innovators and trailblazers in the field, Janes says.
“There can be a sense of ‘imposter syndrome,’ as a law student or young associate, but it’s the times that I am asked to join a strategy call, or I’m asked for my take on what the clinic should be doing—knowing I’m valued—it’s filled me with confidence,” he says.
Janes work on the Idaho book ban matter and on a litigation on behalf of an upstate New York community news outlet has given him a deep appreciation for the vital role the First Amendment Clinic plays in tackling the issues that are plaguing communities across the country.
“Attacks on the press will always be there, but the trickle-down effect has done serious harm to our local journalists and small communities,” Janes reflects. “When free speech is threatened, many of these groups can’t afford the services to fight censorship and suppression.”
“Clinics like ours are some of the only people these organizations can turn to.”
