Arkansas passed a law recently that could mean criminal penalties against librarians and bookstores that provide sexually inappropriate material to minor children. The law, which is set to take effect on August 1, is currently being challenged in court. However, while this piece of legislation might be pointed in the right direction, the language might lead to some serious unforeseen problems.
A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against the Arkansas law, temporarily blocking its enforcement. The judge rejected a motion by the defendants, including prosecuting attorneys for the state, seeking to dismiss the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arkansas, representing some of the plaintiffs, praised the court’s ruling, stating that without the injunction, First Amendment rights would have been at risk:
A federal lawsuit filed Friday challenges an Arkansas law that would subject librarians and booksellers to criminal charges if they provide “harmful” materials to minors.
A coalition that includes the Central Arkansas Library System in Little Rock filed the challenge to the law, which takes effect Aug. 1. The law also creates a new process to challenge library materials and request that they be relocated to areas not accessible by kids.
The lawsuit comes as lawmakers in an increasing number of conservative states are pushing for measures making it easier to ban or restrict access to books. The number of attempts to ban or restrict books across the U.S. last year was the highest in the 20 years the American Library Association has been tracking such efforts.
The lawsuit said the fear of prosecution under Arkansas’ law, which Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed in March, could prompt libraries and booksellers to no longer carry titles that could be challenged.
The lawsuit names Arkansas’ 28 local prosecutors and Crawford County as defendants. This particular conflict is part of a larger battle over the material being given to children in K-12 schools and libraries. Concerned parents have expressed opposition to the inclusion of brazenly sexual content being furnished for children in these places, arguing that it sexualizes kids without offering any educational value. Progressives have responded by downplaying the matter, pretending these parents are exaggerating the issue and falsely labeling them as bigots.
Act 372, the law in question, has aroused criticism from progressives in Arkansas. The ACLU argued that the law “would force libraries and bookstores to segregate or even remove any such potential materials to avoid the risk of prosecution.”
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is part of the lawsuit, argued that the “vaguely written and sweepingly broad directive leaves librarians and booksellers without a clear understanding of what they are legally obligated to do.”
If the law is indeed written using vague language, then the criticisms seem warranted. Laws that are unclear can, and have been, used to unjustly violate people’s rights. In light of this, perhaps we should take a look at the text of the bill:
A person that knowingly sends or causes to be sent or brings or causes to be brought into this state for sale or commercial distribution, or in this state prepares, publishes, sells, exhibits, loans at a library, or commercially distributes, or gives away or offers to give away or has in the person’s possession with intent the purpose to sell or commercially distribute or to exhibit or to give away, any obscene printed or written matter or material other than mailable matter, or any mailable matter known by the person to have been judicially found to be obscene under this subchapter, or that knowingly informs another of when, where, how, or from whom or by what means any of these things can be purchased or obtained, upon conviction is guilty of a Class D felony.
The law defines this type of material as “a book, leaflet, pamphlet, magazine, booklet, picture, drawing, photograph, film, negative, slide, motion picture, figure, object, article, novelty device, recording, transcription, live or recorded telephone message,” or other types of material depicting “nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse.”
This part seems pretty clear to me. However, a sticking point could be the term “furnish,” which is defined as when one “presents, provides, makes available, gives, lends, shows, advertises, or distributes to a minor an item that is harmful to minors.”
For most regular folks, it is easy not to give sexually inappropriate material to minors. But for libraries and booksellers? Not so much.
If one runs a bookstore that happens to sell “50 Shades of Gray,” which is a book intended for adults, and a child stumbles upon it, could someone be thrown in a cage for up to a year as the law requires? Having worked at a bookstore when I was younger, I know that even putting these books into different sections for adults does not necessarily guarantee that children cannot encounter them, especially if their parents are not paying attention. The same is true for libraries. If this happens, who is to be held responsible?
Common sense says that in these scenarios, it does not make sense to prosecute anyone. But as I said previously, the letter of the law can easily be abused, which is why it would make sense to challenge the law on these grounds. If the law is allowed to stand as is, bookstores and libraries would almost have to get rid of all adult material to avoid being charged with a felony.
Most people are not on board with sexualizing children. But most don’t want to see people thrown in prison unjustly either. There has to be a better way to handle this without having a law that could easily be abused. I’m not sure how the lawsuit will fare, but if it results in more precise language, then it is worth discussing.
