The recently passed House Bill 666 to criminalize librarians if minors obtain materials that are “harmful,” seems to miss the mark of protecting children on a few different fronts.
The idea that, in the year 2022, young people are getting explicit materials from books in libraries is almost laughable. What is no laughing matter, however, is the fact that the majority of Idaho representatives felt it prudent to jail librarians in what appears to be an effort to censor what kinds of books children and teenagers can get their hands on.
The kinds of books deemed “harmful” were reported to potentially include a classic Judy Blume young adult novel and the critically acclaimed coming-of-age book “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” Many of the parents who testified in support of this bill were rallying against books that featured stories with LGBTQ characters or storylines, calling them obscene.
The vague language in this bill means that what is deemed “harmful” could be left up to interpretation, leading to a slippery slope of censorship.
The bill would delete a section of Idaho code that protects schools, colleges, universities, museums, public libraries and employees of those entities from being prosecuted under another law that involves giving harmful materials to minors. The law defines various acts as “harmful,” including masturbation.
There are young people who may be seeking out stories featuring characters that mirror how they themselves are feeling, and some of them might not be able to discuss those feelings freely at home. The library should be a safe place for these kids.
Librarians, who are already in a low-paying position, should not face a $1,000 fine and jail time just because they might not know the exact content of every single book in the library. This bill does nothing to prevent certain materials from being available at libraries, but rather attacks the workers.
We appreciate Sen. Chuck Winder’s acknowledgement that the bill likely won’t make it through the Senate, and his calling out of the “craziness” that’s coming through the House. With so many real and present issues facing Idahoans, why did the other chamber decide to devote any time to this bill?
It’s completely understandable that parents want to protect their children from explicit content. But it should be up to the families and guardians to have those conversations with their children. The vague language in this bill could lead librarians to be unwilling to hand out books, even some lauded for literary value, for fear of harsh retribution. The law could potentially result in a lack of diverse voices and perspectives being shared. Instead, parents should be willing to have some deep, potentially uncomfortable discussions with their children.
The legislators who support this bill often denounce government control in citizens’ lives, yet seem all too willing to control what people read.
Idaho does not need to participate in the worrying nationwide trend of increasing book bans that, according to the American Library Association and other free expression advocates, are reaching levels not seen in decades.
Perhaps when weighing these decisions, our lawmakers should look to their own bookshelves and local libraries for guidance; maybe they could start with “Fahrenheit 451.”
