Idaho Republicans bring a new bill on ‘harmful’ library material. What to know
Two Idaho Republican lawmakers have introduced a new proposal to limit “harmful” library materials to children after previous versions of the bill stalled in the Legislature.
One of the previous bills, sponsored by Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, would have let parents sue if a library fails to relocate a book the parents believe to be harmful. The other bill, sponsored by Sen. Geoff Schroeder, R-Mountain Home, would have required libraries to implement policies to address book challenges. The new bill, sponsored by both Crane and Schroeder, includes aspects of both proposals.
“The purpose of this legislation is to keep pornography out of the hands of children in our school and public libraries,” Sen. Geoff Schroeder, a former teacher and Mountain Home Republican, told a legislative committee. Schroeder said lawmakers worked over the last few weeks to join the two bills together so that they “wouldn’t step on one another.”
The new bill would require all libraries to set up review committees, while still allowing lawsuits if a community member doesn’t agree with the library’s findings after an internal appeals process. They could also sue a library that didn’t move material it had already considered “harmful.” They’d be allowed to seek $250 plus additional damages.
The libraries’ review committees would have at least three members, one of whom must be a parent, and tasked to schedule public hearings when they receive complaints. The committees would then have to write a “reasoned decision” about whether to relocate the materials, using guidance from the state’s obscenity law, “the relevant community standards” and any relevant library policies. The definition of obscenity in state law includes sexual acts, masturbation, and homosexuality.
The Idaho Library Association in a statement said it opposes allowing lawsuits and maintains that “library legislation is unnecessary,” but it recognizes the “political realities of the current legislative session.” The association said the review that’s required by libraries before litigation can be filed provides “a measure of local control.”
The association also said the updated bill relies on a Supreme Court definition of obscenity rather than other “vague” definitions that were included in previous bills. The association opposed the previous bills.
A packed public hearing on Crane’s bill last month featured testimony from librarians and others, most of whom opposed the bill, with many arguing that it would threaten library budgets and censor books.
Testimony in favor of the bill was largely concerned about “child sex trafficking” and fears that some books are “promoting homosexuality.”
Justin Prescott, a Meridian librarian, at the public hearing said the bill would limit youth’s access to quality knowledge and information “on virtually any topic.”
“Books on controversial issues create opportunity for growth and learning and help youth critically navigate their world,” said Prescott said. “Libraries make knowledge and ideas available so that everyone has the freedom to choose what they read and the ability to form their own opinions.”
This story was originally published February 7, 2024 at 4:04 PM.
