A Republican bill in the Missouri state House would empower parental review board to order the removal of books deemed "inappropriate" from library shelves across the state. (Photo: Washington State Library/Flickr/cc)
Right-Wing 'Review Boards' in Missouri Would Pave Way for Arresting Librarians Over Books Deemed 'Inappropriate'
"Every reader and writer in the country should be horrified, absolutely horrified, at this bill."
The Missouri Library Association says it is monitoring a bill put forward in the state House by a Republican lawmaker, which, if passed, could create committees across the state with the power to jail librarians for distributing material the panels deem "inappropriate."
Under the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act (H.B. 2044), proposed by Rep. Ben Baker, locally elected "parental library review boards" would be permitted to unilaterally remove books they decide are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate for young readers from library shelves.
Libraries that allow children to borrow books that have been banned or whose access has been restricted would risk losing state funding, and librarians could be ordered to pay fines of up to $500 or sentenced to jail time for up to a year.
The Missouri Library Association (MLA), a non-profit which advocates for library service and librarians, said in a statement and on social media on Wednesday that it "will always stand against censorship and for the freedom to read, and therefore opposes Missouri House Bill 2044."
Baker told local radio news station KOAM that the bill came out of his desire to ensure libraries are a "safe environment, and that [children] are not going to be exposed to something that is objectionable material."
MLA President Cynthia Dudenhoffer rejected that explanation.
"Public libraries already have procedures in place to assist patrons in protecting their own children while not infringing upon the rights of other patrons or restricting materials," Dudenhoffer said. "Missouri Library Association will always oppose legislation that infringes on these rights."
Libraries, authors, and others in the literary community also spoke out about the proposal.
Freedom of expression advocacy group PEN America called H.B. 2044 "a shockingly transparent attempt to legalize book banning."
"Books wrestling with sexual themes, books uplifting LGBTQIA+ characters, books addressing issues such as sexual assault--all of these books are potentially on the chopping block if this bill is passed," said James Tager, the group's deputy director of free expression research and policy. "Every reader and writer in the country should be horrified, absolutely horrified, at this bill."
On social media, Tager added that the bill, while only in the early stages of consideration in Missouri's legislature, shows why groups like PEN America are vigilant regarding the fight against censorship.
Others slammed the bill as "absolutely detestable" and "ominous."
In Cincinnati, the city's public library suggested on its official Twitter account that the bill is a warning that all organizations promoting free expression should "stand with Missouri libraries in the fight against censorship."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Missouri Library Association says it is monitoring a bill put forward in the state House by a Republican lawmaker, which, if passed, could create committees across the state with the power to jail librarians for distributing material the panels deem "inappropriate."
Under the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act (H.B. 2044), proposed by Rep. Ben Baker, locally elected "parental library review boards" would be permitted to unilaterally remove books they decide are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate for young readers from library shelves.
Libraries that allow children to borrow books that have been banned or whose access has been restricted would risk losing state funding, and librarians could be ordered to pay fines of up to $500 or sentenced to jail time for up to a year.
The Missouri Library Association (MLA), a non-profit which advocates for library service and librarians, said in a statement and on social media on Wednesday that it "will always stand against censorship and for the freedom to read, and therefore opposes Missouri House Bill 2044."
Baker told local radio news station KOAM that the bill came out of his desire to ensure libraries are a "safe environment, and that [children] are not going to be exposed to something that is objectionable material."
MLA President Cynthia Dudenhoffer rejected that explanation.
"Public libraries already have procedures in place to assist patrons in protecting their own children while not infringing upon the rights of other patrons or restricting materials," Dudenhoffer said. "Missouri Library Association will always oppose legislation that infringes on these rights."
Libraries, authors, and others in the literary community also spoke out about the proposal.
Freedom of expression advocacy group PEN America called H.B. 2044 "a shockingly transparent attempt to legalize book banning."
"Books wrestling with sexual themes, books uplifting LGBTQIA+ characters, books addressing issues such as sexual assault--all of these books are potentially on the chopping block if this bill is passed," said James Tager, the group's deputy director of free expression research and policy. "Every reader and writer in the country should be horrified, absolutely horrified, at this bill."
On social media, Tager added that the bill, while only in the early stages of consideration in Missouri's legislature, shows why groups like PEN America are vigilant regarding the fight against censorship.
Others slammed the bill as "absolutely detestable" and "ominous."
In Cincinnati, the city's public library suggested on its official Twitter account that the bill is a warning that all organizations promoting free expression should "stand with Missouri libraries in the fight against censorship."
The Missouri Library Association says it is monitoring a bill put forward in the state House by a Republican lawmaker, which, if passed, could create committees across the state with the power to jail librarians for distributing material the panels deem "inappropriate."
Under the Parental Oversight of Public Libraries Act (H.B. 2044), proposed by Rep. Ben Baker, locally elected "parental library review boards" would be permitted to unilaterally remove books they decide are sexually explicit or otherwise inappropriate for young readers from library shelves.
Libraries that allow children to borrow books that have been banned or whose access has been restricted would risk losing state funding, and librarians could be ordered to pay fines of up to $500 or sentenced to jail time for up to a year.
The Missouri Library Association (MLA), a non-profit which advocates for library service and librarians, said in a statement and on social media on Wednesday that it "will always stand against censorship and for the freedom to read, and therefore opposes Missouri House Bill 2044."
Baker told local radio news station KOAM that the bill came out of his desire to ensure libraries are a "safe environment, and that [children] are not going to be exposed to something that is objectionable material."
MLA President Cynthia Dudenhoffer rejected that explanation.
"Public libraries already have procedures in place to assist patrons in protecting their own children while not infringing upon the rights of other patrons or restricting materials," Dudenhoffer said. "Missouri Library Association will always oppose legislation that infringes on these rights."
Libraries, authors, and others in the literary community also spoke out about the proposal.
Freedom of expression advocacy group PEN America called H.B. 2044 "a shockingly transparent attempt to legalize book banning."
"Books wrestling with sexual themes, books uplifting LGBTQIA+ characters, books addressing issues such as sexual assault--all of these books are potentially on the chopping block if this bill is passed," said James Tager, the group's deputy director of free expression research and policy. "Every reader and writer in the country should be horrified, absolutely horrified, at this bill."
On social media, Tager added that the bill, while only in the early stages of consideration in Missouri's legislature, shows why groups like PEN America are vigilant regarding the fight against censorship.
Others slammed the bill as "absolutely detestable" and "ominous."
In Cincinnati, the city's public library suggested on its official Twitter account that the bill is a warning that all organizations promoting free expression should "stand with Missouri libraries in the fight against censorship."