Suggested reading

Leave the librarians alone

For every good idea at the Ledge there’s a bad idea. We can remember some years when we would’ve begged for 50-50.

In the bad category this year: When did librarians become a target for lawmakers?

The state Senate approved a bill last week that would strike a statute from state law protecting public library staff from criminal liability for “distributing” obscene material. As if stamping the back of a book — or, these days, running it under a scanner — after somebody picks it from a shelf is distributing.

Mike Wickline’s story said the bill by Sen. Dan Sullivan is on its way to the state House. Here’s hoping the state reps have a little more to do than pick on librarians.

Those who support SB81, as it’s officially known, say the bill is needed “to protect children from obscene material.”

With all due respect, and even more than due respect, children don’t need to go to a library to check out obscene material. As somebody on these pages recently noted, that stuff is on their phones.

According to the article: “Sullivan told senators his Senate Bill 81 does not remove any books or let the Legislature remove any books from libraries. ‘This just sets out a process for people and parents at public libraries and schools’ to challenge potentially obscene material at a library,’ he said. Sen. Alan Clark (R-Lonsdale) said no one should be handing obscene materials as determined by the courts to children, and there should be no librarian in the state who has to worry about that.”

Great. So why are we having this discussion again? Why is the Ledge wasting its time on it?

The bill certainly does concern librarians, however. Because SB81 would remove a provision in current law that protects public or school library staff who are “acting within the scope of his or her regular employment” from prosecution under obscenity laws.

As a governor of Arkansas once said, this would open up a whole box of Pandoras. Again.

From the story: The bill points to existing law which provides an extended definition of the term “harmful to minors.” Among other characteristics, an item that is “harmful to minors” must be found by an “average” adult “applying contemporary community standards” to have a “predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors.”

An average adult also must find the item depicts or describes “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.” The material or performance would have to lack “serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors.”

Hmm. Every library is connected to the internet these days. Can librarians be punished by something a kid prints from a porn site?

We’re not sure what these few lawmakers are fishing for here, but where is the big public outcry for another fight on this subject, this time in the libraries?

This seems like a waste of time. How can you tell? As Mr. Justice Potter Stewart once said of obscenity, we know it when we see it.