Hundreds — including locals — attend Boise hearing on library bill

BOISE (IdahoEdNews.org) — Librarians told the House State Affairs Committee on Monday that a bill requiring them to relocate “harmful” books would be impractical and expensive to implement.

The committee voted along party lines to advance the legislation during a crammed hearing that needed overflow rooms to hold attendees. Rep. Jaron Crane’s bill is the latest among a string of proposals to restrict material available to underage library patrons.

House Bill 384 requires that libraries implement a process through which patrons can ask for material to be moved to an adults-only section. If library officials don’t relocate the book, they could face a civil lawsuit that includes statutory penalties.

RELATED | Idaho Republican wants to allow damage claims for ‘harmful’ materials in libraries

“There’s no book banning, and there’s no book burning,” Crane, R-Nampa, told the committee. “We’re simply codifying a relocation policy that creates a fair process for both parties that are involved.”

State Affairs Chairman and Nampa Rep. Brent Crane, Jaron Crane’s brother, allowed for about an hour and a half of public testimony on the bill. Hundreds of people attended the meeting, which fell on the same day as a teachers union event at the capitol.

Most testimony strongly opposed the proposal. Libraries already have policies for challenging material in circulation, and the Legislature should allow those processes to be controlled locally, several librarians said. And the threat of a lawsuit would compel costly renovations and additional staff to create adults-only sections and guard them, said Idaho Falls Public Library Director Robert Wright.

“We’re one of the largest libraries in eastern Idaho,” he said. “We can’t afford to do this.”

RELATED | Local libraries increase protective measures for kids as parental concerns rise

Others criticized the standards that would determine whether content is “harmful” to minors. Idaho law defines “harmful” as content that’s “obscene,” appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and is “patently offensive to prevailing standards” of what’s suitable for children. Content is also “harmful” if it’s “obscene” and “has the dominant effect of substantially arousing sexual desires” in minors.

“Obscene material,” as defined by Idaho law, is content that includes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement and sado-masochistic abuse. Any act of homosexuality falls under the definition of “sexual conduct.”

“The homophobia in this bill is blatant,” said Isabella Burgess, a college student and associate librarian in Meridian. “It’s absolutely essential that we have books that represent every member of our community that are accessible to every age range.”

The hearing showed diverging opinions over whether libraries should be responsible for supervising content that children access. Mary Ruckh, a Boise grandmother of two elementary schoolers who opposes the bill, urged lawmakers to “trust and allow parents to care for their children.”

Jennifer Holmes of Post Falls had a different view. Holmes said she asked officials from her local library to relocate a DVD that showed two men kissing on the cover. The request was denied and Holmes was told “it’s my responsibility as the parent to monitor my children,” she recalled for the committee.

“Needless to say, I stopped going to that library,” Holmes said.

Others who support House Bill 384 said they’ve struggled to change library policies locally. Children are “frequently being harmed and corrupted” by library content, said Rachelle Ottosen, a public library trustee in Rathdrum. The board has tried since last year to tighten library policies, but has been stymied by threats of lawsuits, Ottosen said.

“It’s mind-boggling that adults demand children have access to sexually explicit materials,” she said.

There was little discussion among committee members before a vote to advance the bill to the full House with a “do-pass” recommendation. Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, moved to delay a vote and allow those who didn’t testify in the allotted time an opportunity to submit written comments to the committee. The motion failed on a party-line vote.