Alabama Bill Would Criminalize Librarians Who Allow 'Material Harmful to Minors'
The bill also attempts to ban drag performances at public libraries.

Under a new bill working through the Alabama Legislature, public librarians could soon face prosecution for providing minors with "harmful" materials. Critics say that the bill, which passed the state's House of Representatives with a large majority, would force librarians to unnecessarily censor challenged books, or face misdemeanor charges.
"This basically gives one person the ability to have a librarian arrested, as long as they can convince a warrant clerk that they've given notice and material is obscene," Rep. Chris England (D–Tuscaloosa) said during a discussion of the bill on Thursday. "Does that make you comfortable?"
House Bill 385 updates an existing obscenity law "to provide that the use of any premises to distribute material that is obscene or harmful to minors is a public nuisance," rendering violators open to misdemeanor charges.
The current obscenity law is primarily focused on preventing minors' access to adult film stores and adult entertainment businesses. H.B. 385 removes a provision that exempts public libraries and public K-12 school libraries from the law's consequences—though college and university libraries are still exempt.
The bill also contains a provision that seemingly attempts to ban "drag queen story hour" and similar events with drag performers in public libraries by barring "any sexual or gender oriented conduct that knowingly exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities in K-12 public schools or public libraries where minors are expected and known to be present without parental presence or consent."
Constitutionally unprotected obscenity has a widely accepted three-part legal definition—work that appeals to the "prurient interest," "depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct," and "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." However, "material harmful to minors" is a much more vague legal concept. In the bill, it is defined similarly to the basic, three-pronged obscenity definition but with the condition that it is inappropriate for minors specifically.
Courts have agreed that there can be some material that is obscene to minors but not adults, thus allowing states to enact laws banning minors from having access to some explicit material that otherwise would not meet the standard obscenity definition.
It is unclear whether, upon a legal challenge, H.B. 385 would be treated as a permissible anti-obscenity law or if the bill's language would be considered so vague as to seriously challenge protected speech. In July 2023, a judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking a similar law in Arkansas from going into effect.
Those opposed to the bill argue that it could cause librarians to face unfair enforcement from community members seeking to ban controversial books.
"We are for the entire community. We have to be. We've got some books in here that are far right. We've got some books on the far left. But the library is for the entire community. We've got to stay in the middle as best we can, and they want to push us way off to the far right." Craig Scott, president of the Alabama Library Association, told the Associated Press. "Why are they coming into libraries or thinking that they can come in and run the place better than us as professionals?"
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sweet home Alabama, where inbred is more than a cool thing to put in a sandwich.
Only talks about ideas.
Let's talk about Alabama's profound lack of education.
Let's talk about Alabama's gullible believers in childish superstition.
Let's about Alabama's unreconstructed bigots, shitty economy, lack of culture, and economic inadequacy.
Anything else you want to talk about involving Alabama and its deplorable inhabitants?
"Material harmful to minors" seems unreasonably vague. If they want no sex stuff for kids, then they should say that.
And we're definitely in clown world when drag queen performances should be held at public libraries is even a thing that needs to be discussed.
Explicit material warnings like on music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUsM00VS8X8
“Material harmful to minors” seems unreasonably vague. If they want no sex stuff for kids, then they should say that.
If it included materials that glorify Marxism unironically, I could get behind it. I can't imagine anything more harmful to minors. The sex stuff is harmless until it becomes part of the teaching curriculum.
“Material harmful to minors” seems unreasonably vague. If they want no sex stuff for kids, then they should say that.
Well, the law, by Emma’s own telling, says “provide” and Emma literally replaces it with “allow” in the title.
I know why the people who want to keep books out of libraries would lie or have multiple reasons, not all of which are clearly stated. The question is (questions are), why is Emma lying? Moreover, why are you attacking people for saying “We don’t want books in public libraries.” for any reason in defense of Emma and her lying?
I mean, Jesus Fuck this has been argued endlessly to the point that you’re making yourself look retarded. The “Insane Christofascists” aren’t saying ‘There should be zero sex books in any library anywhere.’ and a cop should be hovering over every librarian’s shoulder to haul them off to jail at the slightest slip up. They’re just saying the Adult Nude Photography books should be in the adult section and the “101 Ways To Talk Your Girlfriend Into A Threesome” shouldn’t be in the kids section… and if a kid without a library card and/or under the age of 18 comes to the counter with either book, the librarian is obligated not to check it out to them.
Holy Fucking Christ why do you people continue to psychologically retard yourselves like this?
I mean, FFS, I doused lit matches in gasoline as a kid and could compile a method for manufacturing methamphetamines from off-the-shelf chemicals out of the materials in a dozen public libraries, accessible to children, off the top of my head. Does that mean I think "The Nazi Method: How To Cook Your Own Meth In Your Mom's Kitchen" should be stocked in the children's section of my or any local library and that the librarians should just passively "Well this is what this minor is checking out with their parent's library card..." [swipe]? Fuck no. WTF is wrong with you?
What the fuck does any of that have to do with what I said? Or is this a misplaced comment?
JFC. Learn to read. The people saying "harmful to minors" don't want "The Nazi Method: How To Cook Your Own Meth In Your Mom’s Kitchen” in the children's section either. Even if they, themselves, as adults, are meth users. The only reason it's oriented around sex now is because Emma and Reason want to use the local public library to sexualize kids.
The longer you play stupid and/or pettifog with Reason about this the more it seems like you just really are stupid or actively pettifogging.
I mean, literally all I meant in my initial comment was exactly what I said. If they want libraries not to provide children with sexually explicit material, then write that in the law. Because "harmful to minors" is extremely broad and open to lots of interpretation. Because laws should be specific about what they intend to accomplish and when they do and do not apply.
I made no comment on what I think about what books should be made available to children in public libraries. Nor did I attack or defend anyone else's position. Get a fucking grip, dude.
So you're saying that when we say what materials shouldn't be provided using public funds we can't broadly forbid anything? Especially when it comes to harming children?
Get a fucking grip yourself. You didn't used to be this retarded you moron.
Can you actually fucking read what I wrote? You are putting words into my mouth. I'm not objecting to restricting what is provided to minors. I'm simply saying that laws ought to be specific and narrow. Not everyone agrees on what is harmful to minors. So be specific on what you want restricted. How is it retarded to think that it should be possible to read a law and understand what it is meant to accomplish? You didn't used to be this retarded either.
I’m simply saying that laws ought to be specific and narrow.
So the 1A should be interpreted narrowly... or you're pettifogging that the laws and regs you like should be interpreted broadly and the ones you don't like should be interpreted narrowly.
Demonstrable harm is in no way foreign to the judicial system and it's specifically the courts', not the legislature's, job to weigh what constitutes protected free speech in any given case, numb nuts.
Not to mention that, again, this is all in the background and defense of Emma and Reason "Don't Say Gay" Magazine openly reading specificity into laws that isn't even there prima facie. You aren't fooling anyone with this bullshit any more than Chemjeff saying "Why aren't they trying to ban Snow White?"
The libertarian answer is that there should be no public spending on libraries. Your Mott-and-Bailey pettifogging is trying to have your pet cause cake and eat it too. Fuck you, cut spending.
Do public libraries have Playboy, Hustler, and other nudie mags that I can check out along with their copies of Nature? Are those too obscene to be carried? If so, then why is there a push for sexual content to be made available for children?
What about the sexual content in the Bible, clinger?
Do you recognize an exemption for silly superstition and childish nonsense?
It's called the first amendment, and religion comes before speech.
So what? Militia comes before people in the second amendment,
The 2nd amendment . The militia is defined as "the people" , and in the constitution whenever "the people " is mentioned, it means all of us. This is the ongoing argument .
You equate religion to mythology, that is your right, I am sure the Bible, Talmud and Koran are all in the religion section , to you mythology . Probably in the same section as greek and roman mythology .
I think Master thief's argument of Playboy vs drag queen's is more to the point.
My point is order of appearance in the bill of rights is irrelevant.
As long as the holy books are located in the Mythology section I don't see a problem.
"“Material harmful to minors” seems unreasonably vague. If they want no sex stuff for kids, then they should say that."
Then would come the arguments that "this is literature, not sex" nonsense.
The Drag Queen story hours and the after-school Satan Clubs are just trouble makers poking Christians in the eye. Christians spent the 80s and 90s trying to force their religion into schools and they did manage to get some very vague policies created that let them drag religion into the schools. Now those policies are being used against them. If they had left schools as secular bastions and allowed the "wall of separation" to keep government and religion apart then these things wouldn't be able to work their way in.
I think you are a couple of decades off. Baring religion from social spaces started in the 80's and 90's. It is when the children of the 60's counter culture came to power.
If you insist that history doesn't exist that is your right
I guess the libraries now have to remove videos of operas by Mozart and Beethoven now.
Make America Uncultured Again!
"remove videos of operas by Mozart and Beethoven now."
Why is that?
Fuck, they figured that out on the Simpsons decades ago. People like you don't stop at the difficult to defend. Once you get that banned then you go for the next thing that offends your mideval values. Then the next, and the next. Eventually you're banning anything that you wouldn't find in a church.
Which Mozart piece features kids giving each other blowjobs?
Those opposed to the bill argue that it could cause librarians to face unfair enforcement from community members seeking to ban controversial books.
Part of me hopes that librarians just leave states that pass these kinds of laws. See how communities react when schools have to close their libraries because no one will take the job, or when church ladies fill the positions because they’re the only people who can do the job without fear of prosecution.
Church ladies and librarians are the same breed, just of a different political valence.
If you think that public librarians aren't currently suppressing access to books they disapprove of, I have bad news for you.
Really? This is what you defend?
Should we also allow strippers at public libraries?
Look, Emma, if parents want their kids to see drag shows or strip shows, fine with me. But these are libraries, public institutions, putting on these shows, for the public. If over-sexualized parodies of over-sexualized female birthing women is your thing, go to those shows, take your kids to them. But libraries should not put on drag shows any more than they should put on strip shows.
And don’t feed me any guff about libraries being government property where anyone who wants can use the facilities. No, they can’t. Imagine a strip club wanting to use a library, during normal open hours, and demanding that children be allowed to be present, indeed even insisting that children be present, because barring children would violate their right to strip in front of children and have children stuffing dollar bills in their g-strings.
Get a grip, Emma. Stop playing at being so obtuse.
Libraries don't stop religious groups from using the facilities. They are open to pretty much anyone who files the right paperwork.
Taxpayer-funded libraries should be abolished.
^
They are one of the most obsolete things in the world at this point.
Ever watch the movie I Robot? The CEO of the robot company argues with the detective "I suppose you would keep the libraries open when the Internet made them obsolete!"
I will say, in favor of libraries a physical book is a lot harder to change to fit a political narrative than an electronic version on the internet.
>Alabama Bill Would Criminalize Librarians Who Allow 'Material Harmful to Minors'
In other words, the same rules the rest of us have to follow.
Also, wouldn't private libraries solve these issues like private schooling does?
In my state, the law against "pandering materials harmful to juveniles" specifically excludes librarians and teachers. They've always enjoyed different rules.
Is "librarians and teachers" one of those whimsically attained privileged classes like a journalist or is it like gun ownership where you have to pass a background check and or get a state permit in order to exercise a self-evident right that shall not be infringed?
Craig Scott says that not providing obscenity to kids 'pushes him to the far right '. Wow.
Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. Christians don't want kids exposed to gay shit. Well, I don't want kids brianwashed into a religion. You want to pass laws protecting kids from one and someone like me will look over the law and find a way to keep parents from exposing innocent children from bronze aged religions. Protecting children from indoctrination goes both ways.
We get it Emma, your heart bleeds for the poor misunderstood pedophiles pushing perversion on children too young to understand.
Reason has some level of tolerance it seems for pedos and groomers and supporting sexual mutilation of mentally ill kids..
These types of libertarians are somewhat from the Rothbard Eastern European School of cosmo school. I'd prefer Ron Paul and moral libertarianism. Sorry Walter Block but a pregnant woman is not infected with a parasite.
You just don't like people who don't share your mideval values.
"Why are they coming into libraries and thinking they can run it better than us professionals?"
Because you are employed they government and these people are your employers and the agents of your employers. Imagine another type of government bureaucrat wondering why they cannot operate without public oversight and should be just trusted because they are the experts?
Imagine another type of government bureaucrat wondering why they cannot operate without public oversight and should be just trusted because they are the experts?
I would venture to say that better than 95% of government bureaucrats do wonder why they cannot operate without public oversight and be just trusted because they are the experts.
Should we note that this person is criticizing how the legislators are doing their job? Does the lame argument the dork makes not fit in with the legislators?
When is stripper and gangbang night at the library? Fuck off Emma. These tribal platitudes are shallow and inconsistent
I was just thinking the same thing. Why the discrimination against strippers and sex workers in libraries?
ENB surely will have something to say about this.
Mostly sex workers and strippers don't like the lighting in a library. You can see their wrinkles and scars under flourecent light better than UV and strobes.
The drag queens are just fucking with you. They do it to piss you off and see what they can get away with.
Just ban kids from libraries and require a photo ID to enter.
This all started because public elementary school libraries stocked a book with diagrams of how to perform oral sex on "a person with a penis". Also, a book with instructions on how to create an account and upload pictures to an adult hookup site. Last I checked, most kids leave elementary school at 11 years of age. This is the kind of thing that makes the taxpayers think you need some supervision.
As for the drag shows, I used to think this was silly. But then I saw video of a drag queen encouraging a 5 year old to stick a tip in his g-string while dancing under a sign that said "It won't lick itself". Also read a paper by one of the creators of Drag Queen Story Hour and learned that when they say "family friendly" they are referring to their use of "family" to describe their culture. Friendly to drag queens, not parents and children, in other words. Oh, and they really are out there trying to recruit, groom, and sexualize kids. This isn't nonconformant people trying to interact with society. It's a freaking sociology project with a white paper behind it and a doctoral thesis (probably many of them) in front of it.
Woke culture is going to create a lot of very wealthy psychiatrists 20 years from now.
This isn’t nonconformant people trying to interact with society. It’s a freaking sociology project
Oddly enough, even trans people are individuals.
I personally have seen precious little evidence that any of this is being driven by actual trans people and/or cross-dressers, who in my experience prefer to keep to themselves. Progressives need a new underclass to champion and tolerate and your average trans person is happy for the paycheck. From what I've seen (and being in the SF Bay Area that's a fair amount), the trans folks tend to make an effort to make the PR front relatively clean and "family-friendly," if they aren't always that good at judging that.
What becomes a problem is the Progressive insistence that a trans person can literally do no wrong and of course no "minor-attracted person" would ever take advantage of this sudden aggressive tolerance.
This is being done to snub the Christians. That's all. They aren't grooming or teaching sex. They just want to see if they can get away with it and how much they can piss of the Religious Right.
It's doing that right now. 19% of US children have been in some kind of psychotherapy. 11% are on psychotropic drugs. (latest CDC stats)
I guess "Romeo and Juliet" will be banned in 'Bama.
Yeah, that one scene where Shakespeare illustrates Juliet swallowing Romeo’s load really isn’t child appropriate. And did all the Montagues have big dicks?
I mean, there was that one Polanski adaptation, but then again, he did anally rape a child, so... I guess this analogy is pretty spot on.
People like you always start with something that is not easy to defend but as time goes on you try to ban more and more things that aren't in line with your views.
Yes, "Genderqueer" and "Romeo and Juliet" are basically identical.
Those drag queens don't seem to be spending much time at nursing homes do they? Pornographic mags (do they even exist anymore in print?) were sure not available at my public library in NY back in the 80's when I was growing up..seems reasonable to not have public libraries carry this type of content.
As for public schools: other than content shared in sex ed classes, porn books are not appropriate even if they are gay porn which seem to be what the left is pushing..
The bill also attempts to ban drag performances at public libraries.
I don't understand why you sub-titled the article. I mean, you had me sold with the main title. They want to criminalize smut peddlers who target children. GOOD! About time! But did you really think that wasn't convincing enough on its own, that you had to double-down on the awesome by pointing out that it keeps the rainbow groomer pedo clowns away from kids too?
I mean, I'm all for it (really, we ought to castrate those guys and throw them down a hole) - but are we really at a point in society where we can't read, "criminalize sex peddlers targeting children," take the win, and breathe a sigh of relief?
Well, that was revealing. I'm thinking that anyone you want to vote for should never be allowed to be fucking dog catcher much less a legislator or executive office holder.
Don't say "I'm thinking" when you're clearly not, MrMx.
I'm thinking that you don't do much.... thinking that is.
Thank you for illustrating.
Backlash is a bitch, innit?
I can't help but think of the late George Carlin and piece on words you can't say on television. In particular the acceptance of violence and the uncomfortableness with sex. People have no problem if kids see pictures of Gettysburg after the battle but not a book with woman showing their breasts. Not showing in a sexual way, just that some cultures don't require breast covering.
Everyone my age grew up looking at titties in National Geographic. I don't remember seeing any instructions for oral and anal sex in there.
Oral and anal don't make babies.
Unless you still think the storks deliver the babies...
Everyone my age grew up getting lectured about violent cartoons, violent music, and, later, violent video games. Even today, the library doesn't carry NC-17 material of the violent or other variety and even if they did, it would get flagged if one of my kids tried to check it out.
It's almost like M4E's memory and general awareness is conveniently selective in its retardation. That or he's more generally retarded and thinks that if he's selective about his stupidity nobody will figure out that he's trying to blame certain groups or actors spuriously.
Some cultures weren't poisoned by the prudishness of Christianity.
There it is.
What? They weren't. Thus they don't have the nonsense of Genesis to tell them to cover their nakedness so they don't give a shit.
It's like I told you the other day.
Virtually every single position you take on virtually any subject ultimately comes back to you just hating God (or Reality, or Truth, or Goodness, or whatever you want to call it/Him).
That's the heart of Marxism that the progressive mindset molds itself around. It's the impotency borne of a lack of control coupled with the delusion that you can if you just get all your dominoes into place.
Most people grow out of that by their late 20s though. (Churchill had a great quote about that, but it escapes me.) Especially if they've spent that time on a genuine quest to know and understand the world around them.
I can't help it that belief in a magic sky fairy instills a puritanical need to regulate every aspect of our private lives. You, as usual, are confused. I opose the end result of abrahamic monotheism, if they could mind their own fucking business I'd not give a shit about it. But they can't. They want to impose their bronze age morality on others instead of just keeping it to themselves.
To be fair, the Jews seem to fairly good at keeping their faith to themselves. It's their philosophical decendants that seem to have a problem with wanting to impose their ideas of sin on others. Sure the Muslims are REAL bad, but Christians aren't much better.
Language.
I gave you a lot of alternatives to replace God/theism, if you don’t find that your cup of tea. It’s not about my beliefs – it’s about yours.
You don’t believe in God. Cool. (Well, not cool – but we’ll work on that.)
Do you believe in Reality?
Truth?
Good?
Beauty?
Can you admit that those are things with or without God? Or is your worldview so nihilistic that you literally rebel against the Law of Identity?
You immediately want to get wrapped up in particulars – Jew, Christian, Muslim. Forget all that. Go back to the very basics and fundamentals. Do you accept reality? That very thing you crash into every minute of every day and have to reconcile with understanding and knowledge in order to continue existing?
Oooh, consider this statement:
"There are no absolutes."
True or False?
How about if folks are so worried, they police their own children instead of trying to make the rest of the world their unpaid babysitters.
That takes too much work. Better to let government babysit, as long as that government isn't opposed to what I want everyone's kids to learn that is.