Opinion | The “scare tactics” behind the bill to arrest librarians

When I wrote last week about the return of a bill to arrest librarians, I was once again accused of using “scare tactics” to generate fear—“no reasonable librarian,” they said, would actually face jail time.

While misdemeanors don’t typically result in time behind bars, there’s no doubt that librarians would be arrested if the bill passes.

HB4 by Rep. Arnold Mooney, R-Indian Springs—and co-signed by 49 other Republicans in the House—is similar to legislation he brought last session that narrowly missed passage in the Senate.

The pretense of the bill is that librarians should not be exempt from a current state law that provides criminal charges for distributing obscenity or “material harmful to minors” to minors.

But the bill’s structure ensures that the possibility of criminal charges operate as “scare tactics” to chill what books librarians feel they can put on shelves.

Not only does the bill remove the exemption for librarians at public and school libraries, it creates a new incomprehensible definition of “sexual conduct” that only applies to material when it is found in a library.

A process is embedded in this version of the bill that would give librarians a chance to move or remove material. The complainant must inform the library of what books they believe violate the law, and the librarian can either move that book to an age-restricted section, remove the book entirely or notify the complainant that they disagree that the book violates the law.

Here’s the catch: if the librarian decides not to take action, the complainant can advance the matter to law enforcement. And because the crime is a misdemeanor, there will be no investigation to determine whether the book or other material actually meets the definition of “harmful to minors.”

Instead, the librarian would have to be exonerated through a criminal process.

Despite libraries already being legally liable for distributing material harmful to minors, there has not been a single suit to my knowledge challenging a library for distributing such material.

It would appear that the groups and individuals challenging the books don’t want to put their own skin in the game—just the librarians they’re targeting with this law.

If this law is passed, the taxpayers will be responsible for footing the bill to frivolously prosecute or investigate librarians that are serving their communities.

Even if this law passes, there are still strict definitions for what constitutes material harmful to minors, which are only materials that when “taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest of children.”

The Supreme Court has defined “material appealing to prurient interest” as “material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts,” and defined prurient interest as “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or erection.”

Arguably no books challenged in the state would fall under that definition—some would argue that the graphic memoir “Gender Queer” would meet those standards, or perhaps a few controversial sex education books. But it doesn’t really matter what you think should fall under that guideline—it matters what a complainant thinks meets the law. If a person thinks “The Pronoun Book” or “Bye Bye Binary” violates the law, there appears to be nothing standing in their way of having the librarian arrested.

There’s a reason libraries were exempted from the criminal provisions of the original act. The original code section is a single paragraph exempting libraries. 

A good-faith discussion on what’s appropriate for children is welcome, but we have been far past that for a long time. Instead, a few groups, individuals and politicians have simply bullied librarians for a year in an attempt to have their way and they’re showing no signs of stopping.

Make no mistake where the “scare tactics” are coming from.