The Show Me State could become the “Don’t Show Me” state, as a proposed Missouri bill would fine or even jail librarians who lend books to children that a local five-person “parental library review board” thinks are inappropriate. And yes, books that discuss or represent “sexuality” are among the categories that may be deemed inappropriate.
The Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act, introduced by State Representative Ben Baker (R-Neosho), would take all state funds from any public library that “allows minors to access age-inappropriate sexual materials.” What’s “inappropriate”? The bill defines that as:
Any description or representation, in any form, of nudity, sexuality, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, that:
(a) Taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors;
(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is appropriate material for minors; and
(c) Taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors
And who determines whether material falls under that definition? A “parental library review board” established by each library, consisting of five adult residents from the library’s geographical area, and elected by qualified voters of that area. The board will hold public hearings for members of the community to examine any material in question—but the bill makes clear that the final decision rests with the board:
After receiving comments from the public, the board shall examine individual instances of the questioned sexual material to determine whether it is age-inappropriate sexual material under this section.
(b) The board may order any material deemed to be age-inappropriate sexual material to be removed from public access by minors at the public library.
(c) Any such determination or order made by the board shall be the final determination or order on such materials, and shall not be subject to any review by the governing body of the public library, the state, or any political subdivision thereof.
There’s one clause indicating that the board’s decisions may be appealed to the state courts: “This subdivision shall not be construed to prohibit judicial review of any determination or order made by the board under this section,” which is fine for those who have the time and money to engage in a lengthy lawsuit—but by the time that wends its way through the courts, I’m guessing that the child wanting the book in question has probably lost interest already.
Worse yet, librarians who flout this law are subject to criminal prosecution and may be fined or jailed:
Any public library personnel who willfully neglects or refuses to perform any duty imposed on a public library under this section, or who willfully violates any provision of this section, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year.
This is censorship at its most blatant, allowing the values of some to dictate the values of all. Librarians, unsurprisingly, are seeing red. Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association’s (ALA’s) Office of Intellectual Freedom and executive director of the Freedom to Read Foundation, said in a statement:
Missouri House Bill 2044 clearly proposes policies and procedures that threaten library users’ freedom to read and violate our deeply held commitment to families’ and individuals’ intellectual freedom, as expressed in ALA’s Library Bill of Rights. We support the right of families and individuals to choose materials from a diverse spectrum of ideas and beliefs. Public libraries already have procedures in place that assist parents in selecting materials that fit their family’s information needs, while not censoring materials or infringing upon the rights of other families or patrons to choose the books they want and need. ALA is working strategically with the Missouri Library Association to identify the best means to address this legislation.
Cynthia Dudenhoffer, president of the Missouri Library Association, issued a similar statement opposing the bill and supporting the ALA’s stance on the freedom to read.
If you think this isn’t going to target books with LGBTQ content, you haven’t been paying attention. Baker himself told the Kansas City Star that Drag Queen Story Hours held by some libraries were what motivated him to introduce the bill. More than half the books in the ALA’s latest Top Ten Most Challenged Books list are there because someone objected to their LGBTQ content. Communities in California, Virginia, and West Virginia, among others, are facing recent attempts to ban LGBTQ-inclusive children’s books. (The good news is that a subcommittee of the school board in the Virginia community voted this week against the removal of Prince & Knight
One might argue that the Missouri bill’s clause requiring books targeted for removal to also lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors” would mean that most LGBTQ-inclusive children’s books—many from major publishers with a claim to “serious literary” credentials—would in fact stay on the shelves. I’d counter that those criteria are too subjective to offer any certainty in that regard.
Sexuality aside, yes, some books do have descriptions of sexual activities that we would rather our children not see before a certain age. That is up to us as individual parents, though, not some five-person board in our communities. One thing I’ve learned in the 16 years I’ve been a parent, too, is that our kids will indeed encounter many things at a younger age than we might wish. This may lead to difficult conversations—but no one said parenting would be easy.
What to do? If you’re a Missouri resident, contact your state representative (especially if yours is bill sponsor Baker) and tell them to vote no on HB 2044. Follow and support organizations like the ALA, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and PEN America, which are opposing this bill. (I’m guessing the ACLU of Missouri will engage here as well, though it has nothing up as of this writing.) Show your support for banned books and bring attention to the perils of censorship.
(I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program that provides a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.)
