Alabama lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill that could potentially prosecute librarians under the state’s obscenity law for providing “harmful” material to minors. This is the latest in a series of Republican-led bills in the state targeting library content and decisions.
The Alabama House of Representatives passed the bill 72-28, and it now goes to the Alabama Senate. The bill comes amid a surge in the number of challenges to books, often centered on LGBTQ content, and efforts in many states to ban readings of stories by drag queens.
Alabama lawmakers introduce bill to ensure Biden appears on November ballot
The bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Arnold Mooney, said during the debate, “This is an effort to protect children. This is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill. It’s a people’s bill to protect children.” said.
The Alabama Legislature is moving forward with a bill that could potentially prosecute librarians for providing “harmful” materials or programs to minors.
Alabama’s bill would remove an existing exemption for public libraries in the state’s obscenity law. It also expands the definition of prohibited sexual conduct to include “sexual or gender-oriented conduct” in K-12 public schools or public libraries, and states that “minors are not sexually exposed or , exposing persons in exaggerated or provocative clothing or costumes, or stripping, or engaging in lewd or obscene dancing, presentations, or activities.”
The bill’s procedures would allow public libraries and public K-12 school librarians to remove materials within seven days of receiving a written complaint or conduct that violates state obscenity laws. If you fail to do so, you may be charged with a misdemeanor. From the general public.
Opponents argued the proposal threatened criminal prosecution of librarians at the whims of community members who disagree with decisions about books and programs.
“This process will be manipulated and used to arrest librarians they don’t like, not because they’ve done anything criminal. , because you don’t agree with them.”
Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, said libraries already have long-standing procedures in place to review content for appropriateness and for the public to appeal decisions if they disagree with them.
“Why would they come to the library and think that they can come and run the library better than us as experts?” Scott said in a phone interview. He predicted that if the bill becomes law, the state will lose “lawsuit after lawsuit.”
In July, a judge temporarily blocked a similar law in Arkansas that would have allowed criminal charges against librarians and booksellers for providing “harmful” material to minors.
Scott, who started his career in 1977, said he has never seen anything like what he is seeing now. At the Gadsden Public Library, where he works, he saw one person attempt 30 books who eventually won a library management role, he said. Most of the book assignments are related to books that contain content related to gender identity. But it also included a book about a boy who wants to become a ballet dancer.
“We are for the whole community. We have to do that. We have some books here from the far right. We have some books from the far left. But the library is for the whole community. “We’re trying to stay in the middle as much as we can, and they’re trying to push us to the far right,” Scott said.
Republican Rep. David Faulkner, who worked on a replacement version of the House-approved bill, objected to the bill’s potentially far-reaching effects. He said courts have been interpreting what is obscene over the years.
The legislation strips K-12 and public libraries of the immunity they had under obscenity laws, but puts limits on when prosecutions can be filed, Faulkner said.
“It’s only a misdemeanor if you knew what it was and did nothing about it,” he said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Democratic Rep. Neal Lafferty, D-Birmingham, said the bill’s language would allow harassment to be targeted at “people wearing Halloween costumes” or summer clothing that is considered too revealing. He said he was concerned that this might happen.
“We feel this violates the First Amendment and could easily be abused,” he said.
