Libraries in Utah are responding to a new law that would fine staff for allowing kids to access inappropriate material by banning children. “Legislation passed by conservative lawmakers allows parents to sue libraries for books they deem obscene or otherwise inappropriate.” Rather than remove any inappropriate content, they are banning children instead.
Here’s the Library line.
Public and school libraries had 60 days to remove the book or move it to an adults-only area closely monitored by staff, or face lawsuits from parents.
However, many libraries were too small to create a special section, or lacked the resources or appetite for risk, and instead banned kids entirely.
A sign in the Idaho Falls Public Library, with a huge stop symbol, informed patrons they would need to show photo ID if they were under 30.
Children could only enter if they had an unrestricted library card signifying their parents were happy with them browsing alone, or be accompanied by a parent who ‘must sign an affidavit every time you come to the library’.
The sign sparked outrage online, and many critics contrasted it with abortions being banned under almost all circumstances, including rape and incest.
I have not read the law, which may be too subjective, but I sense this is a familiar problem we’ve covered. Every library has a fixed footprint not unlimited shelf space. They cannot have every book. Smaller libraries, even more so. But in each instance, someone decides what books will be available in print. They choose them, buy them, and shelve them, so these gatekeepers, if we play by Progressive rules, are banning books. Whether the library staff, its board, or trustees, someone assigns a value judgment for the community and includes or excludes titles.
In smaller libraries, this is amplified.
Library officials acknowledged the policy would affect homeschooled children in a ‘dramatic’ way but said it was necessary to protect staff, the library, and taxpayers’ funds.
According to Rep. Megan Egbert, keeping libraries like Donnelly open would be impossible if adult-only sections could not be fully monitored.
How did they do it before the sexually explicit material directed at children became a necessary part of any collections?
Maybe these towns need to replace staff with those who prioritize the library’s value to children over an ideological obsession with grooming that is dangerous to them. Or perhaps it is time to ban the library culture that allows this abuse to continue and invest those resources in internet access. It’s not as if we even need partisan child-banning librarians – and think how much better losing that carbon footprint would be for the environment.
Whatever you do, don’t let the Feds fund your broadband infrastructure expansions. They spend billions, but no one who needs it ever seems to get connected.
