As educators work to beat back House Bill 1134, librarians across the state are preparing to join that battle, as well as wage their own, against a stand-alone bill that shares language with the nationally derided bill.
Senate Bill 17, authored by Sen. James Tomes, R-Wadesville; and co-sponsored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, seeks to “remove schools and certain public libraries from the list of entities eligible for a specified defense to criminal prosecutions alleging the dissemination of material harmful to minors; or a performance harmful to minors,” according to its digest. Tomes originally presented the exact same bill in 2021 but pulled it just before its final reading before the full Senate because it didn’t have the support it needed, the Kokomo Tribune reported.
At the time, Tomes said he “will bring the bill back next year,” the newspaper said.
Specifically, the bill allows parents or guardians to sue libraries for letting minors check out “harmful materials” where they’ve been historically protected, Crown Point Library director Julie Wendorf said Tuesday.
Parents would be allowed to sue even though libraries, by virtue of them agreeing when they sign up their minor children for library cards, do not act in loco parentis, or take on the role of parents, she said.
The bill does provide a “special defense,” however, for college and university libraries, according to the digest.
Parents already have a public process for when they object to something the library has, said Wendorf, who’ll be testifying before the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development Wednesday afternoon.
Called “Reconsideration of materials,” a parent or guardian can lodge a complaint, and it’s given to a panel of trained librarians to review. If the parent doesn’t agree with that panel’s ruling, the complaint would go to Lake County Library Board of Trustees, who’re appointed by the Lake County Council, Lake County Commissioners and various school boards.
In the past couple years, a handful of complaints have come up for reconsideration. Mostly, they’ve been materials dealing with LGBTQ+ content and, in the last year, anti-racism books people now claim are “racist,” Wendorf said.
Opposing S.B. 17 won’t be enough to stave off its reach, Wendorf said, because the House has a companion bill in H.B. 1097 with near identical language. And if that weren’t enough, identical language to S.B. 17 remains in H.B. 1134; it was also in S.B. 167, but the Senate killed that bill because “it couldn’t see a path forward.”
The Senate bill, if passed, will create an “unintended, chilling effect” on what Indiana libraries and K-12 school libraries would add to and keep in their collections because each parent or family has a different idea of what’s harmful to their child, Wendorf said. Not only would it affect books about sex education, gender identity and other diverse audiences, but it could reach into Young Adult topics such as physical and sexual abuse, drug use or any other difficult situation some parents might not want their child to see.
Its House companion bill, H.B. 1097, has not been picked up in committee.
And proponents of the bill don’t want to sue libraries, Wendorf said. Instead, they believe the fear of getting sued will be enough for librarians to heed their views. That, however, doesn’t provide any guidance when one person’s bible is another person’s porn.
“Libraries support the right to read and we provide material for the entire community, not just one viewpoint,” Wendorf said. “We can say confidently that we don’t collect pornography, but that still wouldn’t stop people from suing over whatever they find objectionable.
“Everyone has the right to read, and parents and guardians can make that decision for their families alone, not for the whole state.”
Niemeyer didn’t return a request for comment.
Copyright © 2024, Chicago Tribune