State Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, put forth House Bill 556 last week, which would “create criminal liability for certain teachers and librarians for the offense of pandering obscenity.” This bill is similar to those proposed in over a dozen other states this year, targeting librarians and drawing accusations of censorship and fear mongering.
The Ohio Capital Journal’s Susan Tebben reports that the Ohio House bill would charge teachers and librarians with a fifth-degree felony offense for distributing material deemed “obscene.” However, the bill does not explain what materials would be considered obscene, and the lack of clarity concerns teachers and library groups.
Conservatives Defend the Bill
Supporters of bills like this say that it does not ban books or censor speech because the books can still be bought privately. They say it protects children.
“Educational materials should be towards making good citizens, making good future Ohioans and having the material that is directed to prurient interests — that’s not necessary,” Representative Mathews told Ohio Capital Journal’s Morgan Trau.
Concerns about Vagueness and Motive
Tebben writes that the Ohio Education Association said it is still reviewing HB 556, and Ohio Federation of Teachers president Melissa Cropper said the group has not taken a position on the bill, but she is “concerned with the vagueness of the bill and the ability for it to be weaponized by bad faith actors who are focused on attacking public schools and libraries, not on protecting children.”
Maria Bruno with Equality Ohio told the Ohio Capital Journal that she believes this bill will target the LGBTQ+ community because people have different definitions of obscene. She worries that some will wrongly claim that having a queer relationship or character is inherently sexual, she added.
Melissa Cropper said bills like this are one of the reasons Ohio educators are frustrated. Ohio is currently facing a shortage in teachers.
“I think this bill is again just following the lines of the culture wars that we’ve been experiencing and trying to indicate that things are happening, that aren’t happening,” she said. “We don’t need a law that threatens our school librarians or our public librarians around what they’re giving out to children. These people are trained to look at materials trained to determine what is appropriate for certain age groups and what’s appropriate for people to read.”
Growing Trend Worries Librarians
This bill is similar to a wave of legislative efforts this year targeting libraries, librarians, and educators. In February, NBC News reported on this trend sweeping through Republican-led State houses. Joe Kottke wrote that the new wave of bills follows a historic year of book challenges, mainly affecting titles centered on the topics of race, gender identity or sexual orientation. He reported the concerns of several groups across the country, including the American Library Association.
“The American Library Association condemns in the strongest terms possible legislation in more than a dozen states that would threaten librarians and other educators with criminal prosecution for doing their jobs,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, in a statement. “This is not a culture war; it’s a threat to our democracy.”
Caldwell-Stone said the American Library Association is familiar with “attempts to rewrite obscenity statutes” to encompass specific books and topics, and she said she considers it a form of discrimination.
An Exemption Challenged
Obscenity laws in the majority of the states provide exemptions and are designed to prevent legal action against school, museum and library employees, who typically provide access to a variety of materials.
Revoking those exemptions would mean schools and libraries would have to spend more time and resources on defense against scrutiny, Caldwell-Stone said.
As written, Ohio’s law seems to be attempting to challenge these exemptions and add opportunities for special interest groups to challenge materials that do not align with their personal, religious, or moral values. Caldwell Stone worries about the repercussions of this type of legislation.
“To open the door to the prosecution of librarians and educators for doing the work we ask them to do is to allow one individual or one group to dictate what our students learn according to their personal beliefs, regardless of the beliefs and choices of other families in the community,” Caldwell-Stone said.
She continues, “These efforts are simply an attempt to intimidate and chill librarians and educators from serving everyone in their community.”
Future of the Bill
When asked about the bill, Ohio Governor Mike Dewine expressed apprehension.
“Whenever anybody’s talking about passing legislation that bans books — this is dealt with usually at the local community, people can deal with this without a law,” DeWine responded.
Legal experts doubt the constitutionality of laws like HB 556. Case Western Reserve University professor Jonathan Entin explained to Trau that there is precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court on the definition of obscenity.
Precedent decides that you can’t classify work as obscene on the basis of one passage or one scene, Entin said, citing Miller v. California.
“It is the work taken as a whole, applying contemporary community standards,” Entin explained.
Currently, HB 556 has no other sponsors and has been introduced at the end of the legislative session. The bill will soon be introduced in committee.