On Wednesday, April 10, Governor Brad Little signed into effect House Bill 710, also known as the “Harmful Materials” Library Law. The bill—which, contrary to popular belief, does not actually ban any books—requires all public and school libraries in the state to have a form that anyone can use to request that a book be moved to an “adults-only” section of the library if it supposedly contains content that is “harmful to minors.” Failure of the library’s board of trustees to comply and move the book to a restricted section within 60 days could lead to a civil lawsuit of $250 being filed.
While the bill’s premise is reasonable—protecting children from inappropriate material—the dangerous implications lie in the fine print or lack thereof. For one, HB 710 is extremely vague in defining what books are “harmful for minors.” .
The bill defines sexual conduct as “any act of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse or physical contact with a person’s clothed or unclothed genitals.” Under this definition, even the presence of homosexual characters in a book could be enough for someone to file a request to have it moved to an adult-only section. For example, popular children’s book “Heather Has Two Mommies” by Leslea Newman does not portray sexual acts in any way but includes homosexual characters, meaning it could be impossible for anyone under 18 to loan without an adult if a request is filed.
The Obscenity Code also defines obscene materials as “any material which has the dominant effect of substantially arousing sexual desires in persons under the age of 18 years.” Once again, there are many ways in which this could be interpreted. Since arousal is subjective, any person could claim that a book is “arousing” regardless of its actual content, and this book could be restricted from minors without question.
The bill’s most damning and dangerous stipulation, however, is the addition of “any other material harmful to minors” to the list of what books may be restricted. Defining what is harmful to minors is nearly impossible; what is too mature for one child may be perfectly appropriate for another. Additionally, this vague wording allows anyone to claim that material is “harmful for minors” without having to elaborate further or explain how it is harming minors. The wording in this bill gives people free rein to request that almost any book in the library is “harmful to minors” and have it restricted.
Obscenity is notoriously tricky to define. When tasked with defining obscenity, Potter Stewart, Supreme Court Justice 1958-1981, stated, “I’ll know it when I see it.” By leaving vague and subjective parameters for what is considered obscene, the State of Idaho is essentially giving free reign to restrict any books without substantial justification.
Along with the vague and unclear wording of the bill, Idaho lawmakers also left out some important parameters to keep the bill in control, without which there may be severe repercussions.
For one, the bill does not restrict the number of times a book can be challenged, nor does it limit the right to challenge books to library patrons or even parents. This means anyone from anywhere can submit a request to have a book restricted, regardless of whether they have ever stepped foot in the library or are a parent or guardian.
There is also no cap on the amount that can be claimed in damages if a lawsuit is filed. In addition to the $250 fine, those who prevail in a lawsuit may receive “compensation for actual damages and any other relief available by law.”
While, for now, the bill only requires that libraries restrict books to an adult-only section when a request form is submitted, this law is a slippery slope that could quickly lead to some much more severe repercussions.
For one, the infrastructure of creating an “adult-only” section in every single Idaho Library may also prove to be nearly impossible, leading some libraries to be forced to remove books altogether. School libraries, which by nature do not serve adults, will be forced to either remove a book from shelves or place it in restricted access where parent permission is required since few public-school students are over the age of 18.
Additionally, those opposing the bill claim that out of fear of liability, libraries and insurance companies who ensure libraries may start removing “harmful” books from the library altogether. This bill could be the start of an exodus of any material deemed “inappropriate or obscene” from libraries, including any books that mention homosexuality or educational books about the body’s functions.
A strong opponent of the bill, Idaho Senator Carrie Semmelroth, spoke regarding the bill to the floor, “Knowledge is powerful, ideas are contagious, and those who value freedom of expression and diverse perspectives know that intellectual freedom and free thinking are critical for a healthy democracy.”
While HB 710 seems innocent right now, there is no telling the lasting consequences and even more censorship this law may cause. Idaho lawmakers are once again jeopardizing free speech and the education of our youth, and the ripple effects may be devastating.
The Editorial Board can be reached at [email protected]
Sandra Hendren
The Bible has several ideas that are considered sin (harmful). Although, I read it from time to time. I wouldn’t know about something’s that have happened in the history of man kind if I hand not of read it in the Bible first. What’s next? BOOK BURNING? Alumna