TAMPA, Fla. (WFLA) — Several book publishers filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, claiming that Florida’s law surrounding the removal of books from schools violates the First Amendment because it’s too broad.

Some of the publishers involved in the 124-page lawsuit are Penguin Random House, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, Macmillan Publishing Group, and Simon & Schuster.

The lawsuit was filed against Ben Gibson, chair of the Florida State Board of Education; Ryan Petty, vice chair of the Florida State Board of Education; and several members of the Orange County and Volusia County school boards.

The publishers said that “timeless classics” such as “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” “Invisible Man” and “Brave New World” were required to be removed from school libraries under HB 1069.

“Florida has required these books and others to be removed from school libraries under its broad, across-the-board, content-based mandates that forbid consideration of the books’ value,” the lawsuit stated.

The publishers said two provisions in Section 1006.28 that deal with the removal of books violate the First Amendment. The publishers are not challenging other parts of the law.

News Channel 8 has reached out to the Florida Department of Education for comment.

At issue for the publishers are the sections that automatically prohibit books that “describe sexual conduct” and books with “pornographic” content without regard for the three-part test for obscenity established in a 1973 Supreme Court ruling, Miller v. California.

“In enacting HB 1069, the State has mandated that school districts impose a regime of strict censorship in school libraries,” the lawsuit reads. “HB 1069 requires school districts to remove library books without regard to their literary, artistic, political, scientific, or educational value when taken as a whole.”

The publishers argue that based on the current broad definition of “describes sexual material,” the Oxford English Dictionary would have to be removed from libraries even though it is not obscene. Earlier this year, one Florida district added dictionaries and encyclopedias to a list of books to be reviewed for possible bans.

The restrictions apply to all grade levels and broadly regulate the availability of constitutionally protected books, the publishers said.

“These restrictions — as interpreted and enforced by the State of Florida — violate the First Amendment because they are impermissibly overbroad content-based restrictions,” according to the lawsuit.

Publishers claim the law is encouraging school districts to remove more books than the First Amendment would permit, and is creating a “culture of fear” in the education community.

“Educators who are already afraid of official state action or action by vigilante members of the public fear the loss of their credentials and livelihood and even threats to their safety,” the suit stated.

The publishers are not looking to stop schools from keeping obscene books out of libraries, but said the law allows books “that are not remotely obscene” to be removed “under the guise of ‘pornography,'” according to the lawsuit.

The publishers argue that if the state dislikes an author’s idea, it has the right to offer a competing message but does not have the right to “suppress the disfavored message.”

The publishers are asking a judge to declare that the ban on content that “describes sexual conduct” is too broad and unconstitutional. They’re also asking for a judge to declare that “pornographic” is synonymous with “harmful to minors” and would fall under the Supreme Court’s “obscenity standard,” or if it’s not synonymous, that it’s too broad.