Tag: north dakota

Republicans in the North Dakota state House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would not only ban public libraries from carrying any books with “sexually explicit” content, but would also jail librarians for up to 30 days on felony charges (plus up to a $1500 fine) if they fail to remove such works within 30 days of a written request from anyone. No, the bill doesn’t include any other evaluation of the book; it would simply have to be removed. Good law-writing!

Just to make clear that the bill’s authors are bigots, House Bill 1205 wouldn’t just ban public libraries from owning books that include photos, pictures, or other “visual depictions” of various sex acts, but also “sexual preferences,” “sexual perversion,” sex-based classifications” (?!?), “sexual Idenitity” or “gender identity,” although the bill doesn’t define any of those terms.

The bill does at least generously include an exception for “works of art” with “serious artistic significance” and for books used in science classes, including “biology, anatomy, physiology, or sexual education classes.” What a relief!

---

As the AP reports, the bill’s sponsor, state House Majority Leader Mike Lefor (R), explained in a hearing Tuesday that he simply wants to protect the children from being harmed by

“disturbing and disgusting” content, including ones that describe virginity as a silly label and assert that gender is fluid.

Well gosh, we can see how those are absolutely illegal concepts in some nation that doesn’t actually have a First Amendment

Lefor argued that a child’s exposure to such content has been associated with addiction, poor self esteem, devalued intimacy, increasing divorce rates, unprotected sex among young people and poor well-being — though did he did not offer any evidence to support such claims.

You don’t need evidence to know that mocking virginity as a silly label leads to addiction. It’s just common sense. And despite the bill’s text offering a pass to works used in sex ed classes, one of the bill’s supporters singled out a couple of popular sex ed books for young people, because presumably they aren’t for classroom use?

Stark County resident Autumn Richard also spoke in favor of the bill, giving examples of explicit content in the graphic novel “Let’s Talk About It: The Teen’s Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human” and the kids’ comic book “Sex Is a Funny Word” — both available in public libraries. [Links will give Yr Wonkette a small cut of sales — Dok Zoom]

Richard argued the books might have beneficial knowledge about contraceptives, body image and abusive relationships, but many sections provide information that she said was harmful for minors.

Gay stuff, is what she meant. The Bismarck Tribune notes that Lefor also cited tiny cartoon genitals in Let’s Talk About It as a reason that no one must ever see the book in a library, let alone talk about it. The book has recently been the object of the usual screamy public comments at a local library board meeting.

“I think the content of it is disgusting, that at the very least public libraries should put it in a restricted area where (children) need to get permission from their parents to take a book out like this, but they’re offering it to junior high school kids … and when we grew up, we didn’t need things like this,” Lefor told the Tribune. “This is not a way to raise our kids, and we have to do everything we can to make sure that this doesn’t get into the hands of children, especially without their parents’ knowledge.”

In addition, a former school superintendent, Tom Tracy, called Let’s Talk About It “legally obscene” and said that he had sent a copy to the North Dakota Attorney General’s office, but he didn’t say whether the AG had shown up to arrest him for having sent obscene materials through the mails or anything.

For some reason, mostly basic literacy in US law and court decisions, critics of the bill insisted at the hearing that no matter how much the bill’s proponents call works about sex education or LGBTQ+ people “obscene” and “pornographic,” that’s not what those words actually mean. Among the killjoys was Cody Schuler of the ACLU of North Dakota, who testified against the bill.

“Nearly 50 years ago, the (U.S.) Supreme Court set the high constitutional bar that defines obscenity,” [Schuler said]

Obscenity is a narrow, well-defined category of unprotected speech that excludes any work with serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, Schuler said. Few, if any, books have been deemed obscene, and the standard for restraining a library’s ability to distribute a book are even more stringent, Schuler added.

Okay, but what if people are really sure that a book with gay penguins really is obscene, since it will make kids wonder why the boy penguins like each other and then the children start selling themselves on the street for heroin?

Another enemy of decency, Bismarck Veterans Memorial Public Library Director Christine Kujawa, said the bill was so overly broad that it would define as “sexually explicit” a harmless little children’s book about two cute little hamsters who get married, but they’re both male.

Well yes, that’s the point. Even if there’s no randy hamstersex, that “sexual preference” stuff clearly indicated the hamsters prefer sex, unlike depictions of Dick, Jane, and Sally’s mother and father, who may be married but clearly never had sex or gender.

No votes have yet been taken on HB 1205, and it hasn’t yet been scheduled for a hearing. Lefor also said he would be open to amending his bill to allow the banned material only in a restricted area of public libraries. which is remarkable in itself: He thinks some books are so filthy that people should be jailed for making them available to the public, but on the other hand it would be OK if they were kept in one part of the library only?

Also, LOL, the Bismarck Tribuneoffers this detail on exactly how many young people may have been driven to addiction, divorce, and growing hair on their palms:

Let’s Talk About It” was in the Valley City Barnes County Public Library’s young adult section for nearly two years and was checked out twice before controversy arose recently, Library Board Member Allen Blume said. The board voted 4-1 last week to relocate the book to the regular collection. He was the lone no vote.

“This is not about the book. This is not about protecting our children. It’s about censorship,” Blume told lawmakers.

We applaud Mr. Blume’s stand for reason, and hope he has upgraded his home security, because rightwing bigots are crazy these days, the end.

[Associated Press / Bismarck Tribune]

Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month to help us keep the lights on and the books steamy.

Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.