Librarians could end up in prison under a new Republican proposal being debated at the state Capitol.
The bill, introduced by Freedom Caucus Chair Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), would make it a Class 5 felony punishable by up to 2 1/2 years in prison for librarians who refer or facilitate access to so-called “sexually explicit” materials to minors.
It builds upon a 2022 law that bans school employees from sharing sexually explicit material, expanding it to public libraries, adding harsher sentences and expanding the definition of “sexually explicit.” And, according to Sen. Hoffman, it’s necessary.
“It’s reprehensible that we have an entire political party in this country that is openly supporting the sexualization of kids,” Hoffman said in committee recently. “You know, my colleagues across the aisle, they talk about important literary value that should be provided to 17-year-olds, that should be provided to 12-year-olds, and to 5-year-olds, yes, 5-year-olds. There are books with sexually explicit materials targeting preschool and kindergarteners.”
Hoffman also read to the committee a scene from the controversial teen coming-of-age book “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” highlighting the kind of material that is out there for kids to consume. He also argued the criminal penalties were necessary to ensure employees comply.
“This is inappropriate material for children. Our criminal code prohibits it if it’s provided to them by Circle K or by a liquor store or by a Walmart or a Target. But yet somehow Democrats have no problems with the overt sexualization of children at the hands of librarians and schoolteachers,” he said.
But, Democrats have said this goes way too far. Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed similar legislation from Hoffman in the past. But we are less than a year away from the next gubernatorial election, and at least one GOP hopeful, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, told the Arizona Republic he supports legislation like this.
So, how are librarians responding to this idea? For more on that, The Show sat down with Erin MacFarlane, Advocacy Committee chair for the Arizona Library Association. We began with where we are now — and how this law would change things.
Full conversation
ERIN MACFARLANE: There was a law that was passed in 2022 that defined sexually explicit material and for school libraries and for schools in general, said that they’re not able to refer students to sexually explicit material without confirmed consent from the parent. This is being applied differently in different school districts across the state.
Some school districts recognize that this is a curriculum law and only are applying it to school libraries and curriculum that is assigned in the classroom and requiring parents to sign a permission slip if there’s material that’s considered sexually explicit under the law. And some school districts are saying that doesn’t apply to the school library as a whole. Other school districts say it has.
So in those school districts where they’ve determined that this is applied to the school library, librarians and library staff, school staff have had to go through and evaluate every piece of material in the library, read it to see if anything in that piece of material could be considered sexually explicit under the law. They then have to separate those books out and are only allowed to circulate those books to students if they have that permission slip from the parent. So that’s already happening in school libraries.
LAUREN GILGER: Already happening. And it sounds like a lot of work, actually.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, it is quite a lot of work.
GILGER: Okay, but putting the onus on the parents there, but also on the schools for sure to try to figure out what this means and what’s sexually explicit and what’s not. You mentioned this particular bill also expands that definition of what is considered sexually explicit. What else might be included in that?
MACFARLANE: So it includes any kind of description of sexual excitement, and the bill is very graphic in the description of what that might mean. And school libraries would not be able to refer students to that, but then this adds public libraries into the mix, which haven’t been in the bill before.
GILGER: And that’s a much bigger pot, right? In terms of who’s accessing that material and how many people it would affect.
MACFARLANE: Exactly, exactly. So that’s a much bigger pot. And that’s a lot more material. I mean, public libraries offer a lot more material than school libraries do. So if you’re thinking about in this bill, the way it talks about public libraries is “refer a minor to sexually explicit material” or — this is the quote that’s dangerous — “facilitate access to.”
So that means, you know, if we have books on the shelves in public libraries and we allow anyone to come into the building and access those books because everyone has the First Amendment right to choose what they want to read — including minors. That’s been said time and time again by the Supreme Court. Just having those books on the shelf in the library could be considered in violation of this law because we’re facilitating access to or allowing minors to access those materials.
GILGER: And it would criminalize, punish potentially with jail time, the librarian?
MACFARLANE: Correct.
GILGER: What’s the reaction among librarians to that?
MACFARLANE: I think there is a feeling of disbelief and fear that this is something that could happen to them in their everyday job. And there’s a lot of anger. Librarians do a lot of hard work, and they are essential to the communities that they serve. All libraries are local. They all work to serve their local communities. And librarians do a lot every day to ensure that kids have access to books. They can help to learn to read. They’re constantly connecting folks to resources.
So not only books and DVDs and audiobooks, but computers and hotspots and jobs and all different kinds of — sometimes it’s help with eviction advice. It’s there connecting folks to resources. So there’s lots of different stuff that librarians already do and work hard to do, and then when legislation like this is proposed, they’re looking at it and thinking, “Gosh, now I could become a felon simply because I’m doing my job?” So there is that disbelief and a little bit of anger involved.
GILGER: Bills like this have passed in other states in the country, not that many, but some. What does that look like there? Like, are we looking at adults-only libraries in Arizona?
MACFARLANE: Yeah. So that is something that’s happened. So, for example, in Idaho. Idaho has a law very similar to this, and in Idaho, they do have an adults-only library now. Because if you think about the “facilitate access” language and you have a very small library — one room maybe, very much like we have here in Arizona in some of our small and rural communities — it’s very difficult to separate out books that are there for adults that might be considered sexually explicit under the law and not allow children to walk over to those shelves and pull off a book of any kind.
So in fear of being in violation of this type of legislation, there are libraries in Idaho that have become adult-only. And so those community members’ children are allowed in the library, but only with a parent or guardian or with different types of permission slips, I think, that are signed and they have to go through a special process.
GILGER: So there are some examples, I think, of sexually explicit material in books, especially some young adult books for teens that are pretty explicit, right? Like including some that the sponsor of this bill, Sen. Jay Kaufman, read a committee about this from “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” which has been at the top of subject to debate about this as well, I know.
Where do you think the line should be? Like, this can include things that certainly are very explicit in nature, but does it also include, like, “Romeo and Juliet”? Are we talking about scientific materials as well?
MACFARLANE: Yeah. So because of the vague description of sexually explicit in this law, it could include many things that people I don’t think would consider something that shouldn’t be in the hands of, especially a young adult or a teen individual in the state of Arizona — like “Romeo and Juliet.” There are passages in the Bible that would be in violation of this law. “Of Mice and Men” would be in violation of this law. “To Kill a Mockingbird,” you know, some American classics would be in violation of this law.
And so when librarians are looking at this, we order books and have material available at the library to reflect the wide, diverse community that we serve. And we expect that individuals should be able to choose the books that they feel are relevant for themselves and relevant for their families. So there might be books that I choose and are OK for me and my children and my family that you might not choose.
The example I always give is I had a daughter that, believe it or not, was afraid of aardvarks when she was young, terrified for some odd reason. And we did have to look through books at the library and say, “OK, this is a picture book with an aardvark. We’re not bringing it home for our family.” And I give it to the person at the front desk and say, “This one’s not for us, and you can put it back on the shelf.”
But never did I say, “This one’s not for anybody because I want to spare the community from aardvarks, so please take it off the shelf entirely.” And so I think the line is drawn at the family. Obviously, there are obscenity laws in this country, and so books on the shelf in the library do not meet the law of obscenity as defined by the Supreme Court.
GILGER: There are already lost on the books about obscenity. What about when it applies to kids, though? You’re saying it should just be in the hands of the parents to decide, and the books are there for them regardless.
MACFARLANE: Yeah, the books are there for them, for the kids, and the parents should decide whether or not a book is OK for their family. And everyone develops at a different time and level. So what might feel — “appropriate” is a word that’s used — but what might feel appropriate for your 5-year-old might feel different for my 5-year-old, depending on what we teach and what our beliefs and in our family.
But the books on the shelf in the children’s area, in the young adult area, were specifically written as relevant to that age group. And so if you think about scientific materials, health materials, those were written specifically to be relevant to kids going through puberty. There are puberty books that would be removed and that kids would not be able to access those.
-
The teachers said the bills at the gaining momentum at the Arizona Legislature would restrict when teachers could engage in union behavior. It would also bar teachers from engaging in strikes and work stoppages.
-
Progressive activist Kai Newkirk is looking to unseat fellow Democrat Rep. Greg Stanton, who has represented Arizona in Congress since 2019. -
It’s been two years since Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 139 into law, enshrining abortion rights until about 24 weeks gestation in the state Constitution. -
Arizona lawmakers are considering a pair of proposals that would stop cities and towns in Arizona from implementing new taxes or fees — or increasing ones they already have — through the end of June 2030. -
In a new campaign mailer, Congressman David Schweikert is accusing fellow Rep. Andy Biggs of associating with white supremacists and engaging in antisemitism.
