They don't have the freedom of expression; they're minors. They have no right to be exposed to any speech beyond what their parents decide is appropriate.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
I'm actually not against these books being in public libraries
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.
You've got this all backwards and wrong-way around.
Tinker v. Illinois already addressed that: yes, minors have a right to Freedom of Expression, even in public schools. In fact, minors are particularly protected from government viewpoint discrimination because their parents aren't there as an intermediary, and the minor's speech is being directly regulated by the state. The fact that students are additionally compelled to attend school, and can be seized by the police in order to do so, is such a major infringement that you have to allow students in particular a right to free expression (or: to not be targeted by government viewpoint discrimination).
A public school is already such a massive infringement on an individual's rights and liberties by the state, that the right to resist further infringements is absolutely needed.
He and I aren't addressing the free speech rights of minors because it's a settled issue.
The second part you've got off is that Freedom of Expression isn't relevant. First of all, the children aren't expressing themselves by reading, that's not how any of that works. But the other part is that the state doesn't have a right to expression at all. Reading isn't expression one one side, and on the other: the state doesn't have a right to it anyway.
A teacher in private, outside the performance of their duties does, but again, that's not the issue here. School instruction is not free speech of teachers. The presence of books in classrooms isn't the free political expression of a school library, or librarians.
School libraries. That's a huge difference. The state is providing material to minors. That material does not meet with the consent of the parents, violates obscenity law, and otherwise violates the taboos of the local community. That's a huge problem for the state to be doing that, when the state already compels the children to attend.